/AVE! 


LETTERS 


ON 


FREE  TRADE 


AND 


PROTECTION 


BY 


F.'B.  NASH,  JR. 


BED  WING: 
BED  WING  PBINTING  00. 
1886. 


CiAmcJ 

W 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2013 


http://archive.org/details/lettersonfreetraOOnash 


FREE  TRF\DE 

— £THE2_ 

TRUE  POLICY  FOR  AMERICA 


INTRODUCTORY. 

O  MANY  admirable  pamphlets  have  been  published  in 
favor  of  this  proposition,  it  seems,  perhaps  unneces- 
sary that  there  should  be  more.  But  in  this  as  in 
every  peaceful  reform  the  only  hope  of  progress  is  by 
continual  agitation  of  the  subject,  and  a  continuous  presen- 
tation of  its  principal  features  and  reasons  to  the  public,  in 
every  possible  way.  It  is  evident  that  these  publications 
have  failed  to  reach  the  eye  of  the  very  classes  most  interested 
in  the  matter.  That  is  the  fact  whatever  the  reason.  The 
farmers  of  the  country,  the  laborers,  the  personal  service  men, 
the  vast  body  of  men  engaged  in  transportation  service — 
these  classes  that  especially  owe  it  to  themselves  to  study 
thoroughly  this  most  important  and  vital  of  our  public  ques- 


4 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


tions — seem  to  be  the  very  ones  who  have  not  done  so.  How 
to  reach  them  is  the  problem.  It  appears  a  simple  one,  yet 
so  far  it  plainly  has  not  been  solved.  One  must  accept  this 
conclusion,  or  else  be  driven  to  the  inference  that  this  is  the 
most  gullible  people  under  the  sun. 

In  the  following  letters  I  have  aimed  to  cover  the  main 
ground  in  the  entire  question  of  Protection  versus  Free 
Trade.  In  the  place  of  treating  one  phase  thereof,  I  have 
tried  to  touch  on  all  the  main  points  at  issue  between  Keve- 
nue  .Reformers  and  Protectionists.  I  have  availed  myself  of 
others'  work  and  others'  facts  in  these  pages,  giving  credit 
for  same.  It  has  been  my  design  to  be  instructive  rather  than 
original;  and  my  aim,  to  crowd  all  the  evidence  I  could  into  a 
small  space,  and  at  the  same  time  keep  up  the  interest.  With 
this  much,  by  way  of  preface,  we  will  plunge  into  the  subject 
at  once,  and  ask,— 

WHAT  IS  PROTECTION? 

"Protection"  is  the  name  given  to  that  governmental 
policy  which  lays  a  tax  on  imports  from  foreign  countries, 
not  simply  to  raise  a  revenue  for  the  needs  of  government, 
but  with  a  view  to  prevent  those  imports,  and  so  compel 
Americans  to  buy  what  they  want  of  Americans.  Its  object 
is  to  foster  American  manufactures  and  mines  regardless  of 
the  cost  to  the  consumer.  True,  it  justifies  itself  by  the  as- 
sumption that  this  is  all  the  better  for  the  consumer.  But 
that  is  begging  the  whole  question. 

Practically,  by  its  so-called  protective  tariff,  the  United 
States  says  to  every  one  of  its  citizens:  "My  child,  your  au- 
gust Government  does  not  permit  you  to  buy  what  you  need 
where  you  can  get  it  the  cheapest,  but  insists  you  shall  buy 
of  Mr.  John  Smith,  and  take  your  chances  as  to  his  prices. 
For  Mr.  Smith  is  an  American,  so  are  all  ths  rest  of  you,  but 
that  is  of  no  consequence  whatever. 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


5 


"Now,  Mr.  Smith  may,  and  in  fact  does,  charge  you  in 
some  cases  nearly  twice  as  much  as  an  Englishman  or  a 
Frenchman  would  charge  you  for  the  same  or  a  better  article; 
but  by  and  by,  if  you  will  only  be  patient,  the  Smith  family  will 
enlarge  its  borders  and  grow  so  rich  and  strong  (at  your  ex- 
pense) as  to  compete  with  each  other  like  good  brothers. 
They  will  cut  each  other's  prices,  and  each  other's  throats; 
and  so,  after  two  or  three  trifling  centuries,  they  will  actually 
do  you  the  great  favor  of  selling  you  their  goods  as  cheaply 
as  anybody  in  Europe. 

"It  is  true,  at  present,  and  for  the  last  twenty-five  years, 
Mr.  Smith  has  charged  you  about  $1.75  for  a  shirt  you  could 
buy  for  $1.00  if  you  were  allowed  to  do  so.  But  you  are 
greatly  mistaken  if  you  suppose  it  to  be  to  your  interest  to 
get  that  shirt  for  $1.00  instead  of  $1.75.  Behold!  I  show  you 
a  great  mystery!  I  alone  am  able  to  understand  this  majestic 
mystery  of  patriotism;  for,  you  should  know,  John  Smith  is 
our  infant.  Do  you  see — An  Infant!  whom  I  take  under  my 
especial  care  and  protection.  His  business  must  be  fostered 
and  petted,  or  the  whole  country  will  go  to  the  dogs.  As  for 
the  most  of  you,  you  must  scratch  around  and  get  on  the 
best  you  can.  If  you  do  happen  to  go  to  the  wall,  the  coun- 
try can  stand  it.  You  don't  amount  to  much,  any  way.  Then, 
come  to  think  about  it,  you  shant  go  to  the  wall !  I  will  not 
have  any  wall  for  you  to  go  to;  understand?  There  shall  be 
but  one  wall  in  this  country,  and  that  is  the  great  Chinese- 
American  wall  I  have  built  around  these  United  States  to  keep 
away  the  goods  of  Europe — those  naughty  goods  that  are 
not  American. 

"You  must  take  care  of  yorself.  J.  Smith  can't  do  this, 
so  I  must  do  it  for  him.  It  costs  you  an  awful  lot  of  money 
to  do  it  in  the  way  I  choose  to  do  it— by  forcing  you  to  buy 
his  goods.    And  you  may  think  he  ought  to  stand  on  his  own 


6 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


legs,  like  the  rest  of  you;  but  if  you  think  that  you  are  an 
impudent  donkey,  and  know  nothing  about  these  important 
matters. 

"I  know  it  is  a  fact  that  the  great  mass  of  you  have  gotten 
on  in  the  world  wonderfully  by  yourselves,  and  in  spite  of 
the  untold  millions  I  have  taxed  you  for  Mr.  Smith's  sake. 
I  say  to  you,  your  prosperity  is  all  caused  by  these  many 
millions  I  have  taxed  you  to  protect  him.  I  tell  you  that  if 
I  had  not  taxed  you  in  this  way,  you  could  not  possibly  have 
gotten  on  as  you  have.  You  can  not  understand,  may  be, 
that  the  more  you  have  to  pay  him  for  his  wares,  the  more 
you  get,  somehow,  for  yourself,  and  the  better  you  are  off 
generally.  That  is  a  part  of  the  mystery  quite  too  deep 
for  you. 

"Some  foolish  children  amongst  you,  run  about  to  tell  you 
how  much  this  costs  you;  that  you  area  fool  to  submit  to  it; 
that  there  is  a  better  way  I  have  never  yet  fairly  tried.  But 
these  pestilent  fellows  are  Utopians — do  you  hear?  Uto- 
pians !  They  are  dreadful  creatures,  these  Utopians.  They  are 
zealous  people  who  are  always  finding  fault  and  throwing 
ugly  facts  in  my  face,  and  insulting  your  kind,  paternal  Gov- 
ernment. They  have  multitudes  of  facts  to  throw  at  me,  and 
they  do  not  properly  respect  my  feelings.    They  insist  on 

calling  an  axe  an  axe,  actually,  and  ,  well,  we  won't  go 

into  that  matter  now.  What  do  facts  amount  to  anyway?  I 
tell  you  I  know  it  is  the  best  as  it  is,  and  there's  an  end. 

"They  assure  you  that  for  every  John  Smith  there  are 
nineteen  other  nobodies,  like  themselves  and  you;  that  the 
Smith  baby,  being  near  one  hundred  years  old,  ought  to  be 
a  rather  tough  infant  by  this  time.  They  tell  you  it  is  tyr- 
anny to  tax  twenty  for  the  sake  of  one;  that  it  is  folly  to 
collect  my  taxes  in  the  roundabout  way  I  so  admire;  espec- 
ially when  that  way  costs  you  four  dollars  for  every  dollar  of 


PKOTECTION  AND  FBEE  TRADE. 


7 


revenue  I  get  from  you;  and  that  I  ought  to  tax  you  directly 
as  the  separate  States  do.  Then  they  persist  in  calling  it  an 
outrage  that  I  should  have  special  legislation  favoring  the 
Smith  Infant.  They  add  insult  to  injury  by  saying  that  I  fail 
to  protect  the  poor  child  after  all;  that  I  have  slain  some 
important  members  of  the  family;  that  John  Smith  can  take 
care  of  himself  as  well  as  anybody  else,  and  would  be  as  well, 
or  better  off,  if  I  were  to  let  him  take  his  chances  with  the 
rest  of  you  and  stop  coddling  him.  They  say  this  Chinese 
wall  idea  is  barbarous,  un-christian  and  un-American;  that 
there  is  no  patriotism  in  supporting  such  ancient  follies. 

"Finally  they  tell  you  that  my  custom  houses  are  the  root 
evil  in  the  way  of  Civil  Service  Eeform;  that  I  ought  to  come 
down  to  a  tariff  "for  revenue,  and  finally  abolish  my  dear 
custom  houses  altogether.  And  I  don't  know  how  many 
more  equally  idiotic  statements,  they  call  axioms,  they  have 
to  fling  at  me,  and  back  them  all  up  by  mountainous  facts.  If 
there  is  anything  I  dispise,  it  is  an  axiom,  especially  on  this 
subject!  Yes,  it  certainly  is  dreadful  to  be  an  Utopian,  instead 
of  the  good-natured,  submissive,  American  fool  that  you 
ought  to  be. 

"In  conclusion  I  tell  you,  if  the  facts  are  on  their  side, 
which  I  don't  grant,  so  much  the  worse  for  the  facts  to  be  in 
such  company.  Finally  J.  Smith  pays  the  tax  as  well  as 
you;  better  than  that,  the  foreigner  pays  it;  better  still,  nobody 
pays  it,  there  is  no  such  tax.  What  do  you  think  of  that 
way  of  cutting  the  knot  for  you?  I  am  Alexander  the 
Great,  and  greater !  His  Gordian  Knot  was  nothing  to  the 
many  knots  of  my  great  American  policy  of  Protection.  As 
I  told  you  before,  it  is  a  great  mystery;  so  now  I  tell  you  it 

is  the  champion  knot.    I  alone  can  cut  it,  and  ,  well,  I 

will  not  have  it  cut.  Who  runs  this  Government  anyway?  I 
will  tell  you,  my  child:  J.  Smith,  Esq.,  runs  this  Govern- 


8 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


ment,  and  he  lives  in  Pennsylvania,  and  New  England,  and 
New  York,  with  sundry  relations  scattered  about  the  land. 
Great  is  J.  Smith  of  the  Americans!  And  what  are  you  go- 
ing to  do  about  it,  anyway?" 

This  is  practically  the  kind  of  grimly  humorous  instruc- 
tion and  apology  our  paternal  Government  condescends  to 
give  us.  It  throws  "Do-the-Boys-Hall"  in  the  shade  entirely. 

To  tax  a  nation  for  the  purposes  of  "protecting"  the  busi- 
ness of  any  part  thereof,  is  paternal  government  with  a  ven- 
geance. Yet  that  is  the  distinct  meaning  of  Protection.  It 
is  a  claim  by  government  to  intrude  upon  all  the  purchases 
by  consumers  of  manufactures,  and  to  dictate  to  everyone 
the  store  they  shall  go  to  to  buy.  Protection,  then,  is  a 
special  class  legislation.  It  is  the  carrying  the  proposition 
(which  no  one  disputes)  that  the  government  has  a  right  to 
lay  taxes  sufficient  for  its  expenses  in  its  own  way,  to  an  ex- 
tremity which  is  a  plain  usurpation  of  its  powers — that  is  to 
a  systematic  taxation  to  assist  one  kind  of  business  at  the 
expense,  or  regardless  of,  all  other  business  and  labor 
whatever. 

It  may  be  answered  that  government  has  that  right  if  it 
choses  to  exercise  it.  Then  if  that  be  so,  government  has  a 
right  to  do  simply  as  it  choses  with  the  property  of  anyone 
and  everyone;  that  is,  it  may  be  a  bare-faced  robber  of  in- 
dividual rights. 

How  is  it  possible  such  a  plan  could  be  imposed  on  an 
intelligent  people?  The  answer  is,  they  have  not  been  in- 
telligent in  this  matter  as  a  whole,  and  so  for  a  century  the 
Protection  Tail  has  been  allowed  to  wag  the  great  American 
Dog.   

WHAT    THE    PROTECTIVE    TAKIFF    COSTS    THE   FARMER  AND 
OTHER  CONSUMERS. 

By  the  census  of  1880,  out  of  a  total  of  17,392,099  persons 


PROTECTION  AXD  FREE  TRADE. 


9 


engaged  in  some  occupation,  7,670,493  were  engaged  in  agri- 
culture, or  nearly  45  per  cent,  of  the  whole  mass  of  workers 
of  the  land.  Of  the  exports  to  foreign  lands  for  that  year 
agriculture  furnished  $683,000,000,  or  the  great  bulk  of  our 
exports. 

Agriculture  then,  is  by  so  much  the  most  important  of 
American  industries  that  none  other  can  be  compared  with 
it  for  a  moment.  It  is  the  foundation  of  all  else,  and  lies  at 
the  base  of  all  our  prosperity.  The  farmer  is  the  Atlas  figure 
holding  up  the  burdens  of  the  land.  But  all  this  and  more 
of  the  same  is  but  saying  what  everyone  knows  sufficiently 
now.  I  simply  allude  to  it  as  a  reminder  in  what  is  to  come. 
One  would  naturally  infer,  if  farmers  make  up  so  vast  a 
part  of  our  population,  and  are  so  fundamental  to  everything 
else,  that  their  interests  and  wishes  would  largely  guide  the 
legislation  of  the  country  on  the  practical  matters  of  tariff 
and  taxation,  since  these  must  necessarily  bear  the  hardest 
on  them. 

On  the  contrary,  we  find  as  a  fact  that,  for  the  last  ninety 
years,  the  legislation  of  the  country  on  the  tariff  has  been 
continuously  and  systematically  in  utter  disregard  of  their 
interests,  oftentimes  so  recklessly  heedless  of  them  as  to 
amount  to  contempt. 

'The  agricultural  interests  have  been  systematically  dis- 
pised  at  Washington,  in  effect,  whatever  the  intentions  of 
Congress.  This  is  sufficiently  shown  by  the  fact  that  the 
protective  tariff  has  risen,  with  fluctuations  of  course,  from 
8%  P©r  cent,  ninety  years  ago  to  an  average  of  44  per  cent. 
(1883).  The  infant  industries  of  this  country,  after  ninety 
years  of  fostering,  are  just  five  times  as  infantile  as  at  the 
start,  taking  the  amount  of  tariff  imposed  as  a  gauge. 

But  why  is  this  so?  The  farmer  is  the  American  Samson, 
grinding  the  corn,  not  of  his  enemies,  but  of  his  friends,  too 


10 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


blind  to  his  own  interests  to  make  his  power  felt;  and,  for 
why  disguise  the  truth,  too  ignorant  of  those  interests  to 
care  to  protect  himself  against  the  tariff  shark  of  Pennsyl- 
vania and  the  East.  He  goes  on  voting  for  men  to  misrepre- 
sent him  at  Washington,  with  a  calm  good-nature  that  is 
simply  marvelous.  He  allows  the  manufacturing  interest 
to  sit  down  on  him  just  as  it  pleases,  and  seems  to  enjoy  be- 
ing sat  upon.  It  is  largely  his  own  fault.  He  ought  to 
know  better  and  does  know  better.  He  ought  to  insist  on  his 
representative  at  Washington  looking  after,  and  fighting  for 
his  interests  just  as  the  Pennsylvania  men,  whether  Demo- 
crats or  Republicans,  look  after  the  interests  of  their 
constituencies.  If  he  does  not  do  this,  whose  fault  is  it  but 
his  own  in  the  main  ?  It  is  his  fault,  and  the  fault  of  the 
townsmen  to  whom  he  is  as  the  very  breath  of  life. 

The  late  Morrison  Bill  was  but  an  humble  petition  sent  in 
to  Congress  to  relieve,  by  just  a  little  tiny  bit,  the  burdens 
of  the  farmer  and  others  of  the  unprotected  (about  nineteen- 
twentieths  of  the  population),  and  we  saw  it  overthrown,  and 
trampled  on  by  a  majority  utterly  regardless  of  the  best 
good  to  the  greatest  number.  Yet  the  farmer  is  responsible, 
more  than  anybody  else,  for  that  same  Congressional  ma- 
jority. The  blind  Samson  will  go  on  and  grind  the  corn  of 
his  false  friends  just  as  long  as  he  permits  them  to  make 
him  do  so,  and  no  longer. 

Agriculture  is  the  great,  lusty  interest  of  the  land,  and  it, 
in  the  main,  pays  the  bills  of  a  protective  tariff.  Agricul- 
ture is  strong.  It  needs  no  cradles  from  government,  and  it 
gets  none,  as  regards  the  great  mass.  It  asks  no  odds,  and 
stands  on  its  own  legs.  All  very  well.  The  trouble  is,  the 
protected  industries,  instead  of  standing  on  its  own  legs, 
climb  on  its  shoulders,  and  are  carried  by  it.  Agriculture, 
because  it  is  strong,  because  it  can  not  be  protected,  must 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


11 


pay  the  cost  of  protecting  the  weak  industries.  "The  essence 
of  protection  is  the  support  of  the  weak  industries  by  a  taxa- 
tion on  the  strong  industries." 

The  protectionist  asserts  that  manufactories  cannot  live 
in  this  country  without  a  protective  tariff.  It  is  for  them  to 
prove  this  assertion,  which  is  utterly  false,  we  believe,  yet  he 
asserts  it,  and  Congress  asserts  it  by  its  acts.  If  this  asser- 
tion were  true,  what  does  it  amount  to?  To  this,  that  as 
manufacturers  can  not  pay  here  like  any  other  business,  they 
must  be  subsidized  by  government;  they  must  be  paid  a 
premium  out  of  some  system  of  taxation.  That  is  protec- 
tion. That  is  just  what  is  done.  They  are  subsidized  in- 
dustries to  which  somebody  pays  a  premium  for  conducting 
their  own  business.  If  this  is  not  true,  why  do  they  ask  for 
protection  and  a  subsidy?  "  Only  let  us  net,  say  25  per  cent, 
more  than  we  can  get  in  the  open  market  of  the  world,  (which 
the  farmer  must  take)  and  we  can  get  on  then,  we  think." 
Their  request  being  granted,  and  a  tariff  muzzle  properly 
put  on  the  open  market,  it  follows  as  a  sequence,  that  if  any- 
body gets  the  said  25  per  cent.,  they  must  get  it.  But  who 
pays  it?  Somebody  must.  This  subsidy  must  come  from 
some  one — somewhere.  Who  is  that  someone?  Let  us  see: 
he  must  be  the  foreigner  who  sends  his  goods  here  to  sell,  or 
the  manufacturer  here  in  America,  or  the  consumer.  There 
is  nobody  else  concerned.  Does  the  foreigner  pay  it?  No; 
since  the  tariff  he  pays  goes  to  the  Government  and  he  gets 
it  back  from  the  consumer.  That  is  the  Government's  share 
in  the  transactions  of  a  protective  tariff.  It  will  be,  more  or 
less,  as  imports  are  more  or  less.  It  is,  by  the  way,  all  the 
Government  can  get  out  of  the  tax.  Does  the  protected 
interest,  the  manufacturer,  pay  it?  No;  he  gets  it. 
That  is  his  sole  reason  for  asking  for  it.  If  it  is  not  profita- 
ble to  him,  it  can  be  profitable  to  no  one.    What  is  the  use 


12 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


of  it?  Why  burden  others  in  that  ease?  Why  should  he  be 
always  whining  and  lobbying  at  Washington,  for  what  pro- 
tection he  has,  and  ever  greedy  for  more,  ever  more?  If  it  is 
a  burden  on  him,  why  should  he  be  always  striving  to  keep 
it  up?  The  question  is  a  plain  business  one,  and  answers 
itself. 

Then  who  does  pay  it?  There  is  nobody  left  but  the  con- 
sumer. The  consumer  is  the  unprotected  of  the  land;  he 
only  forms  a  paltry  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  population,  it 
is  true,  and,  therefore,  is  not  entitled  to  any  notice,  relief  or 
help.  He  must  foot  the  bill ;  and  a  very  pretty  little  bill  it 
is,  annually.  We  will  try  to  find  out  what  it  comes  to  in  our 
next  letters.  And  if  we  return  to  the  opening  figures,  we 
will  see  who  is  the  principal  consumer.  For  another  great 
class  of  middle  men  who  serve  the  farmer,  belong  to  this 
class.  Agriculture  being  the  great  business  of  America,  the 
one  which  supports  all  the  others  and  furnishes  the  staples 
of  exchange  with  the  outer  world — agriculture  pays  the  bill 
in  the  main.  But  the  protected  interests  say:  "We  pay  our 
share  as  well  as  others,  of  the  tax,  and  out  of  our  profits  we 
are  able  to  pay  more  back  to  the  farmer  for  his  goods.  It  is 
all  right  all  around,  and  helps  us  all."  Partly  true,  partly 
false.  He  does  pay  his  part  of  the  tax,  so  far  as  he  con- 
sumes manufactured  goods.  He  does  not  pay  the  farmer 
any  more  foi  his  products  on  account  of  the  tax.  The  farm- 
er's products  are  sold  by  the  Liverpool  market.  But  the 
answer  seems  good  and  plausible.  It  is  so  good  we  will  il- 
lustrate it,  and  thus: 

Here  are  twenty  men;  one  is  a  manufacturer,  the  others 
of  various  occupations.  The  nineteen  say,  "We  can  get  on 
by  ourselves;  we  ask  no  help."  The  other  one,  the  twentieth, 
says,  "  But  I  must  have  a  bonus,  or  I  can't  conduct  my  busi- 
ness.   I  must  have  a  subsidy.    I  n^ust  be  protected  or  that 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


13 


horrible  creature,  the  foreigner,  will  eat  me  up.  And  how 
can  you  possibly  get  on  without  me?  Your  prosperity  de- 
pends all  on  me,  and  our  great  American  eagle  will  die  right 
away  if  I  can't  conduct  my  business."  So  the  nineteen,  be- 
cause they  are  generous,  or  because  they  are  fiercely  pa- 
triotic, or  because  they  are  very  simple,  agree  to  that,  and 
say,  "  We  will  tax  each  one  of  us  $5.00,  and  that  will  give  us 
a  fund  to  pay  you  a  subsidy."  So  the  one  pays  $5.00  and 
the  nineteen  pay  .$95.00.  Every  man  is  taxed  alike.  There 
is  a  fund  of  $100.  The  nineteen  get  nothing.  Where  does 
the  $100  go  to?  Who  gets  it?  The  protectionist  calmly 
says  it  does  not  go  at  all.  Nobody  gets  it;  or  else  he  says 
the  workingman.  Nevertheless  the  fact  remains  that  the  tax 
is  imposed  and  collected  as  a  subsidy,  and  the  one  is  the 
subsidized  party. 

What  a  lovely  piece  of  financiering.  Truly  protection 
is  a  great  mstitution — it  is  so  American,  you  see.  But  who 
pays  for  it?  If  protection  is  good  for  the  one,  it  should  ap- 
ply to  the  twenty,  also,  to  be  fair.  If  the  manufacturer  is 
allowed  to  compel  the  farmer  to  "pay  $1.75  for  a  woolen  shirt 
he  could  get  of  an  Englishman  for  $1.00,  the  manufacturer, 
or  somebody,  should  be  compelled  to  pay  the  farmer  $1.75 
for  a  bushel  of  wheat  that  the  Englishman  can  get  for  $1.00, 
or  else  let  the  farmer  trade  his  bushel  of  wheat  for  the  shirt, 
and  so  be  done  with  it. 


SOME  PAKTICULARS. 

The  moment  a  tariff  is  placed  on  imports,  that  moment 
the  price  of  the  imports  to  the  consumer  is  raised  by  so 
much.  If  this  tariff  was  so  placed  as  barely  to  raise  the 
necessary  revenue  for  government,  it  would  yet  be  protective 
in  its  operation  up  to  the  amount  of  the  tariff.  A  tariff  is 
simply  a  tax  on  imports;  and  when  that  tax  is  laid,  not  only 


14 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


for  purposes  of  revenue,  but  with  a  new  to  either  prohibit 
foreign  goods,  or  heavily  handicap  them,  it  becomes  a  "pro- 
tective tariff,"  so-called.  That  sort  of  a  tariff  is  expressly 
devised  to  prevent  Americans  buyiug  manufactured  goods 
in  a  natural  way,  or  where  they  could  buy  them  for  the 
least  money,  and  to  compel  them  to  buy  of  American  manu- 
factories at  a  greatly  enhanced  rate. 

A  good  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  it  works  is  shown 
in  the  comparatively  small  item  of  matches.  Two  years  ago 
we  paid  twenty-five  cents  for  three  boxes  of  matches,  or  ten 
cents  for  a  single  box.  The  tax  was  reduced,  if  my  memory 
serves  me  well,  three-fourths  of  a  cent  a  box.  (And  now  you 
cas  get  matches  at  one  cent  a  box.)  Of  course  it  is  not 
claimed  that  the  reduction  of  the  tax  alone  is  responsi- 
ble for  reduction,  in  a  ten-fold  degree,  in  the  price  of  matches, 
but  the  price  of  matches  came  down  at  a  run,  with  the  tax, 
as  all  will  remember. 

This  enhanced  price,  if  you  get  foreign  goods,  goes  to  the 
Government;  if  you  get  domestic  goods,  it  goes  to  the  manu- 
facturer thereof  as  his  bonus  for  profit,  or  to  cover  bad 
business,  including  strikes,  gluts  of  market,  stoppage  of 
mills,  and  especially  the  enhanced  cost  of  production  inev- 
itable from  our  dunderhead  tariff.  For  example,  the  duty 
on  woolen  wearing  apparel  and  woolens  in  general,  is  a  dou- 
ble duty.  There  is  first  a  specific  duty  of  thirty-five  cents 
per  pound;  then,  in  addition  there  is  an  ad  valorem  duty  of 
thirty -five  per  cent.  Now,  take  a  suit  of  underclothing  that 
can  be  landed  at  New  York  for  $3.00.  This  $3.00  is  the  nat- 
ural price  for  the  same,  and  if  the  Government  took  off  its 
tariff,  that  is  what  it  would  cost  there.  But  the  duty,  as  im- 
posed, will  add  about  $2.40  to  the  cost  of  the  suit.  So  now 
the  "protection,"  or  unnatural  price  becomes  $5.40.  Out  of 
this  amount  the  Government  gets  $2.40  as  revenue.    Now,  if 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


15 


that  was  the  case  all  the  way  through,  it  would  be  endurable; 
but  the  price  of  a  similar  suit  made  in  America  is  forced  up  to 
$5.40,  and  Government  gets  none  of  the  surplus;  it  all  goes 
to  the  manufacturer.  And  the  great  bulk  of  the  woolens  we 
use  are  made  here.  All  this  extra  price  we  pay  for  the  boon 
of  protection.  But  the  worst  is  yet  to  be  seen  in  the  case  of 
blankets.  "In  1882  the  value  of  blankets  imported  was 
$8,877.  The  duty  collected  was  $6,864,  showing  an  average 
tax  of  77  per  cent."  This  was  a  prohibitory  tax  practically. 
There  are  no  blankets  imported  to  speak  of.  Yet  in  that 
year  the  American  people  bought  at  least  $20,000,000  worth 
of  blankets,  and  the  tribute  to  the  manufacturers  was  about 
$8,000,000. 

I  grant  it  will  not  always  follow  that  the  price  of  domes- 
tic goods  will  be  increased  by  the  full  amount  of  the  tariff. 
For  competition  comes  in  to  modify  the  cost  more  or  less, 
and  sometimes  reduces  it  considerably  below  the  tariff  mar- 
gin. But  it  does  follow  that  the  price  of  all  goods  is  raised 
as  a  rule.  A  suit  of  clothing  bought  in  England  was  brought 
to  me  last  summer.  It  cost  $10.50.  The  same  suit  could 
not  be  bought  here  for  less  than  $25.00  or  $30.00.  The 
average  rise  in  price  caused  by  the  tariff  is  variously  esti- 
mated to  average  from  one-fourth  to  two-thirds  of  the  duty. 
Now  let  us  look  at  some  of  the  results : 

"The  home  production  of  cotton  fabrics  for  1880  was 
$210,950,383.  Average  duty,  40  per  cent.  Government  rev- 
enue from  cotton  about  $7,000,000.  Tribute  to  manufacturers, 
about  two-thirds  of  the  duty;  $45,000,000.  That  is,  for  every 
dollar  of  revenue  to  Government  from  the  tariff,  six  dollars 
went  to  the  manufacturers.  In  1880  the  value  of  our  do- 
mestic woolen  manufactures  was  $268,894,935.  Average 
duty  on  woolen  then  (and  now)  65  per  cent.  Tribute  to  man- 
ufacturers, at  40  per  cent.,  $76,000,000.    The  Government 


16  PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 

revenues  from  woolen  goods  in  that  year  was  but  $18,000,000. 
Ratio,  $1.00  to  Government  to  $4.00  for  manufacturer". — 
McAdam. 

There  are  worse  cases  even  than  these.  For  instance :  In 
1880  the  value  of  carpets  made  in  the  United  States,  was 
$31,792,802.  The  duty  collected  on  imported  carpets  was 
$832,305.  The  duty,  64  per  cent.,  was  practically  prohibitive 
and  the  Government  secured  very  little  revenue  from  it.  But 
the  extra  cost  of  carpets  to  this  people  was  $10,000,000,  or 
$1.00  to  Government  to  $9.00  for  manufacturers. 

The  result  in  steel  rails  was  worse  still.  For  every  $1.00 
Government  derived  as  duty  on  these,  $13  was  paid  as  a 
tribute  to  the  American  manufacturer.  When  the  Michigan 
Central  and  the  Canada  Southern  railways  laid  their 
tracks  one-half  mile  apart,  in  1872,  the  American  road  cost 
$3,000  per  mile  more  than  the  Canadian,  just  because  it  had 
to  pay  $27.00  more  per  ton  for  its  rails.  All  of  which  the 
farmer,  and  the  merchant  who  sells  to  the  farmer,  had  to 
bear,  in  increased  freight  and  expenses. 

The  railroads  of  the  country  have  been  fearfully  more 
costly  than  there  was  any  occasion  for.  All  this  results 
from  the  tariff;  and  all  this  increases  the  consumer's  expense, 
and  decreases  the  farmer's  income  especially,  by  enhanced 
figures. 

The  following  table  will  show  the  rate  per  cent,  of  duty 
in  1880,  on  the  most  important  goods: 


Cotton  goods  40.13  per  cent. 

Iron  and  steel  34.40 

Woolen  goods  66.74 

Silk  and  goods  thereof  50.  " 

Glass  53.77 

Salt  49.90 


These  are  given  as  specimens.    The  total  value  of  manu- 


PROTECTION  AND  IEEE  TEADE. 


17 


factored  goods  in  the  United  States  consumed  at  home 
amounted  that  year  to  85.250,000,000.  On  a  great  deal  of 
this  sum  the  tariff  did  not  increase  price.  A  great  many  ar- 
ticles, so-called,  manufactured,  such  as  flour  and  feed, 
are  not  affected  in  price  by  the  tariff.  We  export  them,  we 
do  not  import  them.  The  average  rate  of  duty  on  dutiable 
goods  was  41.70  per  cent,  in  1880,  assuming  what  is  very  rea- 
sonable, that  the  average  increase  in  price  of  manufactured 
articles  amount  to  only  one-fourth  of  the  duty,  then  the  in- 
creased cost  of  our  home-made  goods  amounted  to  8547,000,- 
000  per  year.  Moreover,  this  means  so  much  additional 
capital  involved  in  the  business  of  handling  them;  and  on 
this  additional  capital  must  be  raised  an  extra  twenty-five 
per  cent,  for  retail  and  wholesale  profits,  which  means  a  tax 
of  8136,000,000  more.  This  last  is  all  sheer  waste.  Govern- 
ment gets  nothing  from  all  this  vast  sum. 

This  sum  of  about  8700,000,000  is  what  the  consumers  of 
America  pay  annually  for  the  priceless  boon  of  a  protective 
tariff. 

•  Well,  now  the  census  rjroves  on  examination  that  one-half 
of  the  male  and  female  workers  of  America  are  directly  en- 
gaged in  agriculture.  Another  fourth  are  indirectly  so  en- 
gaged, since  they  get  their  living  from  some  kind  of  service 
more  or  less  connected  with  direct  agriculture.  But  just 
taking  those  engaged  directly  in  farming,  we  find  that  the 
cost  of  the  tariff  to  them  in  1880,  was  8350,000,000  annually, 
at  the  very  lowest;  on  which  some  of  them  received  back  a 
very  small  per  cent,  of  the  whole.  The  wool-growers  and 
sugar-raisers  alone  reaped  any  benefit  in  increased  prices.  It 
is  a  pretty  little  bill  the  farmer  pays  for  the  lovely  schemes 
of  protection. 

Did  you  know  that  in  1860,  the  farmers  comprised  one- 
half  the  population  of  the  United  States,  and  owned  one-half 


IS 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


the  wealth?  And  that  in  1880  they  still  made  up  nearly  half 
the  population,  but  owned  only  one  quarter  of  the  wealth  of 
the  land?  That  is,  the  hardest  worked  half  of  the  population 
increased  their  property  four  billions  of  dollars;  the  other 
half  increased  theirs  twenty-four  billions  of  dollars,  or  six 
times  as  much.  And  beyond  a  doubt  the  huge  and  wasteful 
tariff  tax  is  to  a  large  extent  responsible  for  this  tremendous 
difference  in  accumulation.  This  twenty  years  comprised 
the  period  of  highest  tariff,  and  also  of  greatest  expansion  of 
the  farming  interest.  There  will  never  be  another  period 
when  the  farming  interest  will  cover  so  much  new  ground, 
and  open  up  so  much  new  and  fertile  land.  And  yet  agri- 
culture accumulated  only  fifty  per  cent,  on  its  capital  in  this 
period  of  immense  national  expansion,  while  the  other  half 
of  this  people  accumulated  (saved)  300  per  cent,  on  theirs, 
and  lived  on  the  fat  of  the  land,  if  anybody  did,  beside. 

The  farmer  has  been  on  the  down  grade  in  America  in 
influence,  power,  wealth,  and  self-respect  as  well — this  long 
time.  He  has  worked  the  hardest  of  all  its  people,  and  has 
the  least  to  show  for  it.  He  has  borne  the  heaviest  burden 
of  this  grotesque  and  unjust  tariff  tax.  We  would  think  he 
would  wake  up,  and  see  what  is  the  matter  with  him  and  his 
business.    And  it  looks  as  if  he  was  about  to  do  just  that. 

N.  B. — Four  billions  saving  for  the  hardest  worked  half 
of  our  people  in  twenty  years:  Twenty-four  for  the  other 
half  in  same  period.  Where  will  the  farmer  be  after  an- 
other such  decade  or  two? 

The  great  bulk  of  this  huge  tax  falls  on  the  farmer,  and 
always  must.  Besides,  this  system  of  so-called  protection 
burns  the  farmer's  candle  at  both  ends.  While  it  piles  up 
the  cost  of  everything  he  needs,  and  adds  grievously  and 
sometimes  doubly  to  the  price  of  everything  he  must  buy,  it 
hurts  him  also  in  regard  to  what  he  sells,  for  it  cuts  tfff  and 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


19 


keeps  down  the  world's  demands  for  bis  products.  If  we 
had  direct  and  free  trade  with  all  the  world,  the  demand  for 
the  American  farmer's  goods  would  be  immensly  increased. 
For  that  matter,  so  also  would  be  the  demand  for  the  Ameri- 
can manufactures  be  increased  in  a  far  greater  ratio.  Trade 
between  nations  is  simply  "swapping"  goods,  as  a  whole. 
The  simpler  and  more  direct  the  fashion  of  the  trade,  that  is, 
the  more  Government  keeps  its  hands  off,  the  better  for  the 
trade. 

But  ours  is  the  paternal  government  par  excellence.  It 
interferes  with  our  purchases,  and  compels  us  to  buy  of  the 
high-priced  American  manufacturer,  by  either  prohibiting 
or  handicapping  the  foreign  manufacturer's  wares.  And 
what  is  all  this  senseless  tyranny  for,  we  ask?  If  there  were 
any  real  and  great  good  to  be  had  from  it,  we  could  console 
ourselves  somewhat.  If  it  were  true  that  the  workingmen 
of  the  land  were  helped,  we  could  resign  ourselves  to  the  out- 
rage. But  the  reverse  of  all  this  and  more  is  true.  What 
have  we  to  show  for  nearly  a  century  of  wasteful  and  costly 
protection?  Our  manufacturers  to-day  receive  just  five  times 
as  much  protection  as  at  the  beginuing.  They  need  that 
much  more  soothing  syrup  of  bonus  to-day,  and  we  cannot 
get  it  reduced.  Our  merchant  marine,  as  we  will  show  in  a 
subsequent  letter,  has  been  protected  down  to  its  very  grave, 
and  ruined. 

The  protective  system  does  not  increase  wages  to  the 
workingman,  but  it  does  increase  the  cost  of  living  most 
grievously.  Labor  has  never  been  protected  in  these  United 
States,  nor  can  be,  until  immigration  is  prohibited  or  taxed. 
Wages,  so  long  as  there  is  absolute  free  trade  in  labor,  can- 
not be  affected  by  any  tariff  whatever.  It  is  the  greatest 
humbug  that  was  ever  thrown  out  for  a  bait  to  a  generous 
people.   It  is  the  most  astounding  piece  of  self-deception 


20 


PROTECTION"  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


possible.  Protection  is  a  great  load  on  the  back  of  all  the 
workers  of  the  land. 

We  have  shown  what  is  the  direct  cost  to  consumers  of 
this  system,  and  hinted  at  the  indirect  damage  to  the  farmer 
in  decreasing  the  demand  for  his  products,  which  form  the 
great  bulk  of  our  exports.  And  we  may  look  in  vain  for  any 
resulting  erood  to  him  whatever.  For  all  it  costs  him,  for  all 
it  injures  him,  he  gets  no  return,  nor  ever  can. 

Besides,  the  whole  system  of  indirect  taxation  is  wasteful 
and  false.  It  turns  the  pyramid  of  taxation  upon  its  point 
instead  of  its  base.  For  by  this  method  government  is  sup- 
ported by  a  tax  on  what  we  eat,  drink  and  wear,  and  use 
personally,  not  on  what  we  own.  An  illustration  will  show 
what  this  means : 

Win.  Vanderbuilt,  at  his  death,  owned  one  two-hundred 
and  fiftieth  part  of  all  the  wealth  of  this  country.  He  ought 
therefore  to  have  paid  that  proportion  of  the  government 
tax,  called  revenue.  What  did  he  pay  in  reality?  He  paid 
the  tariff  on  wnat  he  consumed,  just  like  the  poorest  laborer 
of  the  land.  And  he  paid  more,  as  he  consumed  more. 
Practically  he  paid  no  more  to  government  for  its  protection 
of  his  property  than  he  would  have  paid  had  he  owned 
nothing.  Yet  that  too  is  a  part  of  the  great  American  policy, 
which  the  western  farmer  has  been  supporting  and  voting  for 
at  Washington,  all  these  years,  and  is  voting  for  to-day. 

When  will  the  great  unprotected  wake  up?  When  will 
he  bestir  himself  to  do  his  duty  to  himself  and  the  nation? 


WHAT  IS  IT  ALL  FOE?     WHO  AEE  THE  PEOTECTED? 

We  have  considered  a  few  of  the  items  of  cost,  to  the  in- 
dividual consumer,  of  the  protective  system.  It  is  unneces- 
sary to  pursue  that  department  of  our  study  in  detail.    It  is 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


21 


enough  to  say  simply  that  almost  everything  we  use  is  made 
costlier  to  us  by  this  system. 

The  free  list  contains  nothing  of  importance,  save  coffee 
and  tea.  On  these  articles  there  is  no  duty — probably  be- 
cause they  axe  in  no  sense  American  industries — and  hence 
there  can  be  no  beggarly  whining  for  aid  from  some  petty 
little  clique.  Yet  it  would  seem,  if  revenue  is  the  object  of  a 
tariff,  these  very  articles  are  the  ones  to  tax,  as  the  entire  tax 
would  go  solidly  to  the  Government. 

Apart  from  these,  every  article  of  common  consumr  tion 
is  taxed  so  heavily  that  the  cost  of  living  is  greatly  increased. 
All  articles  of  wearing  apparel,  all  kinds  of  hardware  and 
machinery,  all  sorts  of  manufactured  articles,  in  short,  are 
taxed  with  a  view  to  protection.  The  aggregate  cost  is  simply 
enormous.  The  farmers  of  Minnesota  are  just  now  greatly 
exercised  over  the  railroad  tariffs,  and  justly  so;  but  the 
protection  tariff  is  a  far  greater  burden  upon  them  than  the 
railroads. 

The  question  at  once  comes  up,  What  is  it  all  for?  What 
is  the  object  in  taxing  the  people  for  the  support  of  the  Gov- 
ernment in  such  a  way  that  it  costs  them  four  times  as  much 
in  the  aggregate  as  the  Government  gets  by  the  system  of 
taxation?  It  seems  plainly,  on  the  face  of  it,  the  most  costly 
way  of  raising  revenue  that  could  be  devised,  and  again  we 
say,  Where  is  the  reason  for  it?  Well,  the  reason  given  is: 
"Protection  of  American  industries."  You  look  at  that  an- 
swer sideways,  and  all  around,  and  it  begins  to  look  like  an 
invitation  to  lift  yourself  by  your  bootstraps.  Well,  that  is 
about  what  it  comes  to.  How  a  people  are  going  to  be  en- 
riched and  assisted,  as  a  whole,  by  heavy  and  ruinous  taxa- 
tion could  never  appear  to  any  sane  mind,  one  would  think ; 
yet  that  is  the  protectionist's  position  if  he  has  any.  He  is 
welcome  to  the  burden  of  proof  of  such  an  absurdity.  It 


22 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


would  seem  apalling  enough  to  stagger  anyone,  yet  this  is 
the  substance  of  the  protectionist  arguments:  That  taxation 
is  what  has  made  this  country  so  great  and  prosperous;  that 
taxation  is  the  secret  spring  of  all  our  growth  and  greatness. 
Taxation  is  the  secret  of  America  and  her  might.  But  for 
the  protective  system  of  taxation  the  business  of  the  country 
would  at  once  go  into  chaos  and  ruin;  and  many  more 
equally  distracted  assertions,  accompanied  by  much  so-called 
patriotic  gush  and  declamatory  warnings. 

Now  it  would  seem  very  simple  and  reasonable  to  let  the 
gas  out  of  such  preposterous  assertions,  by  the  puncture  of 
one  axiomatic  proposition:  That  we  are  a  prosperous  and 
rich  and  great  people  in  spite  of  taxation,  not  because  of  it. 
That  seems  plain  enough,  does  it  not?  It  cannot  make  me 
any  richer  to  tax  me,  say  $200  per  annum,  on  my  house.  Yet 
for  a  century  we  have  been  denying  this  statement,  and  to- 
day the  Government  is  acting  on  the  belated  protectionist 
assertions  as  above  given.  Of  course  it  does  not  put  it  to 
itself,  or  wish  us  to  look  at  it  in  this  disrespectful  way.  All 
these  naked  absurdities  are  covered  up  with  the  beautiful 
and  patriotic  cloak  of  "Protection  to  American  industries  and 
workingmen." 

Well!  Let  us  see  what  industries  are  protected,  and 
what  their  proportion  is  to  the  entire  industry  of  the  land. 
If  protection  is  good  for  anything,  it  ought  to  be  good  for 
the  whole  country,  and  it  must  be.  If  good  for  a  part  it 
must  be  good  for  all.  That  is  the  assertion  of  protection, 
and  on  that  assertion  it  has  beguiled  the  representatives  of 
the  people  all  these  years  into  voting  to  keep  up  the  huge 
imposition. 

We  will  begin  with  the  great  industry,  Agriculture.  Eice 
sugar  and  wool  are  the  only  products  of  any  importance 
whose  price  is  raised  by  protection.    Rice,  we  have  seen,  is 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


23 


heavily  taxed;  sugar  also  in  a  less  degree.  But  these  are 
manufactured  articles,  and  not  merely  the  rude  products  of 
the  soil.  Hence  the  protection  afforded,  perhaps.  Wool  is 
raised  in  price  by  ten  cents  a  pound.  The  rice  and  sugar  in- 
dustries are  very  small  items  in  the  farming  of  America;  yet 
the  rice  growers  of  South  Carolina,  the  sugar  interests  of 
Louisiana,  have  been  duly  at  Wasnington,  tearing  their  hair 
before  the  committee  on  the  poor  little  Morrison  Bill,  and 
sitting  down  in  sackcloth  and  ashes.  They  plaintively  sigh 
and  patriotically  bleat,  "Oh  gentlemen!  if  our  subsidy  is 
lessened,  by  a  hair,  these  United  States  (by  which  we  mean 
ourselves)  are  goiDg  to  be  brought  to  the  verge  of  ruin.  And 
the  wool-raisers  are  howling  like  wolves,  everywhere,  for  pro- 
tection and  its  blessed  subsidy  of  ten  cents  a  pound.  They 
want  more,  and  will  take  it  if  they  can  get  it,  of  course. 

The  actions  of  these  interests  only  show  again  the  in- 
tensely selfish  and  plundering  nature  of  protection.  Every 
industry  that  reaps  a  bonus  from  it  is  sure  to  make  itself 
heard  in  the  lobbies  and  before  the  committees  at  Washing- 
ton. They  begin  to  howl  about  ruin  and  chaos  the  moment 
Reform  dares  to  look  at  their  fat  preserves.  It  is  human 
nature,  perhaps,  but  very  disgusting.  And  meantime,  the 
great  mass  that  is  being  robbed  and  plundered  in  the  house 
of  their  own  familiar  friends,  sits  patiently  silent  and  endur- 
ing, and  allows  tne  robbers  to  do  as  they  please. 

But  the  agricultural  interest,  these  comparatively  small  ex- 
ceptions made,  are  absolutely  ^protected;  yet  they  include 
forty-four  per  cent,  of  the  workers  of  the  land.  True,  there 
is  a  tax  on  corn  of  ten  cents  a  bushel,  and  on  wheat  of  twenty 
cents  a  bushel;  but  Congress  might  as  well  tax  the  Rocky 
Mountains  for  revenue  or  protection  as  these.  These  are 
our  exports,  not  imports.  Corn  and  provisions,  wheat  and 
bread-stuffs,  with  cotton — these  are  our  great  staples,  which 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


go  out  to  pay  for  what  we  get  from  the  outside  world.  In 
1881,  our  exports  of  agricultural  products  amounted  $730,- 
394,943,  or  nearly  eighty-three  per  cent,  of  our  total  export. 
Agriculture  must  and  can  hoe  its  own  row.  Corn  and  wheat 
and  cotton,  being  strong,  cannot  be  protected.  They  must 
carry  themselves  and  all  the  weak  industries  that  go  on 
whining  journeys  to  Washington  besides. 

After  agriculture,  we  find  there  were  by  the  census  of 
1880,  4,074,238  persons  engaged  in  rendering  professional,  or 
personal  services  in  this  country — lawyers,  doctors,  ministers, 
clerks,  domestics,  workingmen.  Besides  them  were  1,810,256 
engaged  in  trade  and  transportation.  Add  these  together 
and  you  have  about  thirty-five  per  cent,  more  of  the  workers 
of  America.  Were  any  of  these  "protected"  by  our  policy? 
Certainly  not.  The  only  way  to  protect  them  is  to  prohibit 
by  a  tremendous  tax  the  importation  of  professional  men, 
clerks  servants,  laborers,  railroad  workers  of  all  sorts,  sea- 
men, etc.,  from  Europe.  When  that  is  done  a  stop  will  be  put 
to  the  free  competition  of  labor,  just  as  there  now  is  by  our 
tariff,  a  stop  put  to  the  free  competition  of  manufactured 
goods.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  will  American  workingmen 
of  all  kinds,  and  workingwomen  be  protected.  Labor  is  ab- 
solutely free  to  come  here  as  it  pleases,  and  compete  with 
all  of  us  who  work  in  any  of  these  ways.  The  astounding 
thing  in  all  this  is  that  such  a  mountainous  fact  as  this  should 
not  have  been  seen  and  felt  by  all,  long  since.  The  amazing 
thing  is  that  so  many  of  these  should  still  be  working  and 
voting  for  their  own  plundering.  They  have  been  as  care- 
less and  as  demurely  quiet  as  the  farmers  themselves,  which 
is  saying  a  great  deal.  For  all  these  classes,  representing 
eighty  per  cent,  of  our  workers,  to  allow  the  present  protec- 
tion system  to  be  kept  up,  is  simply  to  pay  for  organized 
burglary,  and  to  encourage  the  wanton  plundering  of  them- 
selves. 


PROTECTION  AND  FBEE  TRADE. 


25 


There  remains  3,837,112  of  our  workers  in  1880  to  be  ac- 
counted for.  There  were  2.739.907  persons  engaged  as  man- 
ufacturers, or  skilled  workmen.  Of  these  only  52,207  are 
classified  as  manufacturers.  Of  the  balance  of  2,587,700 
classified  as  workmen,  all  carpenters,  bricklayers,  masons 
seamstresses  and  others,  are  as  entirely  unprotected  as  the 
workers  spoken  of  above.  And  as  the  result  of  very  careful 
computations  by  skillful  and  competent  men,  we  find  finally 
that  only  837,112  of  these  are  "protected"  by  our  tariff,  and 
many  of  them  only  partially.  We  are  getting  the  rabbit  cor- 
nered, and  a  very  small  rabbit  he  proves,  for  all  the  billions 
of  dollars  he  has  cost  the  American  workers.  We  find  then 
finally,  that  out  of  a  total  of  17,392,099  workers  in  these 
United  States  in  1880,  only  837,112,  or  about  five  per  cent, 
(that  is  to  say  one  in  twenty")  are  "protected"  by  our  fright- 
fully costly  system.  What  a  case  for  iEsop's  fable  of  the 
mountains  laboring  to  bring  forth — a  mouse.  Twenty  taxed 
for  the  sake  of  paying  a  subsidy,  called  protection,  to  one. 

Why,  there  are  more  women  working  as  domestic  servants 
in  America  than  all  the  protected  workers  put  together. 
There  were  1,075,653  female  servants,  utterly  unprotected 
against  "the  pauper  labor  of  Europe"  as  our  protectionist 
friends  (save  the  mark)  contemptuously  phrase  the  honest 
labor  of  people  quite,  as  good  as  ourselves;  and  yet  they  are 
taxed  heavily  on  every  yard  of  cloth,  or  ribbon,  on,  in  fact, 
almost  everything  they  have  to  buy.  Moreover,  there  were 
280,000  women  working  as  seamstresses,  dress-makers,  ready- 
made  clothing,  and  shirt  and  cuff  makers,  etc.  Many  of 
these  are  the  most  sorrowful  workers  in  the  land,  scarce 
earning  a  pittance  that  may  keep  soul  and  body  together,  in 
tears  and  penury,  and  awful  temptation — yet  every  one  of 
these  pathetic  workers  is  taxed  to  pay  a  bonus  to  the  man- 
ufacturer, or  the  mine  owners,  etc. 


26 


PROTECTION  AND  FKEE  TRADE. 


The  conclusion  to  all  this  is  simple  enough;  and  it  is 
this:  Our  protective  tariff  is  a  monstrous  perversion  of  the 
taxing  power  of  the  government.  It  is  wasteful,  it  is  fright 
fully  costly,  it  is  utterly  unrighteous,  it  is  tyrany.  The  Gov- 
ernment has  the  right  to  tax  us  for  its  necessities;  no  one 
disputes  that  right;  but  that  it  has  the  right  to  tax  us  for 
the  support  of  other  men's  business,  is  an  assumption  of 
power,  every  free  man  should  protest  against  as  an  invasion 
of  his  rights,  and  a  restriction  of  his  liberty. 

Protection  is  an  organized  attempt  to  make  life  harder 
and  costlier  than  God  and  nature  meant  it  to  be.  As  such  it 
is  a  complete  success,  for  that  is  all  it  does  or  can  do — make 
life  and  living  harder  and  costlier  to  the  great  mass  of 
workers. 


DOES  PROTECTION  PROTECT  THE  W0RK1NGMAN? —  WAGES 
AND  WTOEKERS. 

It  has  been,  and  is  to-day,  continually  asserted  that  the 
protective  system  increases  wages,  and  so  improves  the  con- 
dition of  the  wTorkingmen  in  the  protected  industries  and  all 
over  the  land.  Indeed  this  assertion,  boldly  persisted  in 
these  many  years,  has  so  imposed  on  the  country,  and 
even  on  those  who  make  such  assertions,  as  to  utterly  befog 
the  whole  matter,  and  induce  Americans  to  accept  econo- 
mical falsehoods  for  vital  truths. 

If  this  assertion  were  true,  it  would  not  afford  any  justi- 
fication for  the  grievous  burdens  and  injuries  inflicted  on 
the  principal  industries  of  the  land  by  the  tariff.  Nothing 
can  justify  an  enormous  tax  on  all  of  the  workers  of  America 
in  order  to  benefit  one  man  out  of  every  twenty,  or  one  man 
out  of  ten.  Nothing  can  excuse  the  plundering  by  Govern- 
ment enactment  of  an  entire  nation  just  to  build  up  special 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


27 


industries;  in  other  words,  to  pay  subsidies  to  a  small  por- 
tion of  that  nation  for  conducting  their  own  business.  No 
good  reason,  economical,  sentimental,  or  patriotic,  can  be 
given  to  excuse  this  crime  against  even-handed  justice  to  all. 
It  is  well  to  be  reminded  at  the  start  of  what  we  have  to  say 
on  wages,  of  the  facts  of  our  last  letter,  and  of  these  simple 
propositions  which  appeal  to  every  man's  sense  of  justice; 
especially  is  this  true  when  we  see  that  there  is  no  way  to 
end  these  burdens  and  subsidies  save  by  the  radical  applica- 
tion of  the  axe.  If  one  could  see  any  end  to  this  oppressive 
system  he  might  wait  patiently.  But  we  find  at  the  close  of 
nearly  a  century  of  protective  tariff  taxation,  that,  so  far 
from  getting  any  relief,  we  are  handicapped  five  times  as 
heavily  as  at  the  start.  Protection  commenced  with  eight 
and  one-half  per  cent,  of  tariff,  and  to-day  it  has  forty-two 
per  cent.,  and  cries  for  more,  ever  more. 

This  being  said,  we  return  to  the  aforesaid  assertion,  and 
confront  it  with  an  absolute  denial.  The  assertion  that  this 
system  increases  wages  and  improves  th^  condition  of  the 
American  workingmen  is  so  false  and  shallow  as  to  be  ridic- 
ulous. It  is  a  heresy  against  common  sense  and  facts,  which, 
nevertheless  is  yet  firmly  believed  by  the  masses.  One  of 
these  days  our  children  will  look  upon  this  belief  in  us,  as  we 
regard  our  grandfather's  belief  in  witches.  They  will  smile 
at  our  century-old  delusions  as  we  smile  at  the  "Salem  days" 
of  New  England. 

In  this  matter  of  wages,  as  in  every  other  department,  the 
facts  are  all  against  the  protectionists.  These  last  are  never 
tired  of  talking  of  their  being  practical  men,  when,  in  fact, 
they  are  the  wildest  theorists  in  the  country.  They  have 
not  one  fact  to  back  them  up,  except  this,  that  in  spite  of  all 
the  damage  and  loss  they  have  cost  and  are  costing  Ameri- 
can labor,  they  have  not  been  able  to  ruin  it.  American  labor 


28 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


has  carried  the  huge  protectionist  load  on  its  stalwart  shoul- 
ders and  lived  and  prospered  in  spite  of  it. 

For  what  are  the  facts  in  this  labor  problem?  What  are 
the  controlling  agencies  in  establishing  wages?  Wages  are 
determined  by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand  first.  When 
there  is  much  work  to  be  done,  and  few  men  comparatively 
to  do  it,  wages  will  be  high.  This  has  always  been  the  case 
in  America,  and  consequently  wages  have  always,  been  high 
here.  Where  there  is  a  great  demand  for  men,  there  their 
labor  will  be  well  paid.  There  is  more  work  to  be  done, 
more  work  to  be  had  in  these  United  States  than  anywhere 
else  in  the  world.  And  our  wages  are  the  highest  on  the 
average. 

There  is  a  sequence  to  this  fact,  which  develops  another 
of  the  factors  in  high  wages.  That  sequence  is  this:  Where 
there  is  so  much  work  to  be  done,  there  a  man  must  do  a 
great  deal  in  a  day,  he  must  accomplish  more  than  elsewhere 
is  accomplished,  aud  he  does  do  just  this.  Tbis  gives  us  an- 
other fact,  that  where  the  labor  is  scarce,  and  the  work  to 
be  done  great,  there  a  man  does  more  work  and  accomp- 
lishes more.  Hence  we  see  the  apparant  contradiction,  that 
high  wages  are  really  the  cheapest  labor;  that  countries 
which  pay  high  wages  have  a  corresponding  high  production 
which  more  than  makes  up  the  difference.  A  man  accom- 
plishes more  here  than  anywhere  else  in  the  world.  The 
very  man  who,  in  Italy  will  do  no  more  than  his  companions, 
will  accomplish  in  America  three  times  as  much.  The 
amount  a  man  may  do  is  conditioned  by  the  tools  ho  works 
with,  by  what  his  companions  call  a  day's  work,  by  what 
custom  demands,  by  the  natural  advantages  or  disadvantages 
of  the  country  he  lives  in.  In  all  those  respects  the  advant- 
age is  on  the  side  of  America.  Hence  this  cry  about  the 
"pauper  labor  of  Europe"  overwhelming  us,  is  arrant  non- 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


29 


sense.  This  so-called  pauper  labor  can  never  compete  with 
the  high  priced  labor  of  England  and  these  United  States. 
If  it  could,  Italy  would  be  sending  us  our  manufactures.  An 
English  American  farmer  lately  told  me  that  he  had  seen 
eight  men  engaged  in  doing  the  work  in  a  harvest  field  in 
England  which  two  men  would  do  here. 

Another  great  element  in  high  wages  here  is  our  abun- 
dance of  rich  and  easily  worked  land.  This  makes  agricul- 
ture our  greatest  bnsiness.  It  employes  one  half  the  Nation, 
and  is  able  to  give  good  wages  for  work  done.  Being  the  heav- 
iest employer,  it  doas  more  than  any  other  one  cause  to  force 
up  wages  to  a  high  standard,  and  then  insists  on  a  big  day's 
work  to  correspond;  and  by  ihe  best  of  tools  enables  a  man 
to  multiply  himself  three-fold. 

Still  another  element,  or  factor,  in  high  wages  is— the 
rtyle  of  living.  The  American  workman  lives  higher  and 
better  than  his  European  compeer.  He  has  a  better  home, 
a  happier  family,  batter  prospects,  a  higher  hope  of  improv- 
ing his  condition.  All  this  makes  him  more  energetic,  more 
hopeful,  more  workful,  if  I  may  com  a  word.  And  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  however  he  works,  he  accomplishes  more  than 
any  other  workman. 

Protection  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  of  these  elements 
which  are  the  factors  in  the  wage  problem.  The  protective 
tariff  does  not  add  one  cent  to  the  workingman's  wages;  it 
does  increase  in  a  fearful  ratio  his  burdens  and  expenses. 
And  if  it  affects  his  wages  at  all  it  is  disastrously,  for  it 
cuts  off  the  demand  for  our  products.  Every  step  in  reduc- 
ing the  tariff  is  a  widening  and  enlarging  of  our  market,  an 
increasing  of  the  demand  of  our  wares,  a  help  to  build  up 
better  wages,  and  a  happier,  more  comfortable  home,  and 
style  of  living  for  the  workingman. 

The  natural  tendency  in  this  country  is  to  pay  the  highest 


30 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


wages  for  labor,  for  reasons  just  stated.  If  protection  has 
affected  this  tendency  at  all  it  has  been  by  way  of  checking 
it.  It  can  be  shown  by  facts,  that  the  unprotected  industries 
with  us  pay  the  highest  wages  very  decidedly;  whereas  the 
workmen  in  the  highly  protected  industries  of  metals,  wool- 
ens, cottons  aud  mining,  receive  the  lowest  wages.  In  re- 
gard to  the  cotton  and  woolen  operatives  in  particular,  these 
are  actually  getting,  in  many  instances,  lower  wages  than 
are  received  for  the  same  work  in  England.  Yet  the  pro- 
tectionists assure  us  this  taxation  is  all  for  the  betterment 
of  American  labor.  Wages  in  1883  were  not  only  lower  than 
in  1860,  in  the  woolen  manufactories,  protected  by  an  aver- 
age duty  of  sixty-five  per  cent.,  but  were  actually  ten  per 
cent,  lower  than  for  the  same  work  in  England,  while  their 
living  was  twenty  per  cent  higher.  The  American  workers 
who  get  the  highest  wages,  higher  than  their  class  anywhere 
else,  are  in  the  unprotected  industries.  Another  fact:  Wages 
in  the  protected  industries  of  the  United  States  were  better 
nnder  the  very  low  tariff  of  1857,  than  they  have  ever  been 
since.  Are  we  to  infer  from  this  that  our  tariff  helps  labor 
and  adds  to  its  wages,  or  the  reverse? 

If  we  really  want  to  know  what  the  relative  effect  of  free 
trade  and  protection  are  upon  our  wages,  we  must  go  out  of 
our  country  for  a  test  case.  We  must  go  and  examine  the 
results  of  these  radically  different  policies  on  two  peoples 
side  by  side,  who  are  living  under  comparatively  the  same 
economic  and  social  conditions.  Such  an  opportunity  we 
have  wonderfully  apt  in  all  its  aspects,  in  Great  Britain  and 
Germany.  The  former  is  the  only  country  in  the  world 
which  raises  its  revenue  in  a  strictly  scienti  fic  manner.  It  is 
the  free  trade  country,  par  excellence.  On  the  other  hand, 
Germany  is  the  radically  protective  country  of  Europe.  Both 
have  a  swarming  population,  sending  out  hosts  of  emigrants 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


31 


annually.  Both  are  heavily  laden  with  a  powerful  and 
numerous  and  costly  aristocracy.  In  many  respects  they 
are  similar  in  character  and  faith.  Now  here,  if  anywhere, 
the  protective  policy  should  prove  its  assumptions  and 
claims.  And  here,  of  all  places,  is  where  you  find  the  lie 
direct,  given  to  all  these  claims  by  the  facts.  So  much  the 
worse  for  the  facts,  say  the  American  protectionists,  that  is, 
such  as  condescend  to  inquire  into  the  facts  in  this  case,  for 
most  of  them  are  supremely  ignorant  of  these  facts. 

In  every  particular,  without  a  single  exception,  the  facts 
are  against  Germany  and  protection.  The  deductions  of 
Schoenhof,  after  an  exhaustive  study  of  the  subject,  are  that, 
"English  wages  are  fully  50  per  cent,  above  those  of  Ger- 
many, and  on  the  average,  at  least  30  per  cent,  above  those 
of  France.  Besides,  the  English  working  week  is  one  of  56 
hours,  whilst  that  of  Germany  is  from  66  to  72  (often  78) 
hours,  and  that  of  France  72  hours.  Yet  the  latter  guard 
themselves  by  protective  tariffs,  not  against  their  weaker 
rivals,  but  against  the  country  which  pays  the  highest 
wages  and  for  the  shortest  hours." 

Since  free  trade  became  the  British  policy,  wages  in  Eng- 
land have  advanced  an  average  of  ninety  per  cent.,  and 
pauperism  has  decreased  fifty  per  cent.,  and  population 
has  increased  fifty  per  cent.,  crime  decreased  sixty-six 
per  cent.  Yet  Disraeli  and  the  Tories  made  the  most  dis- 
mal forecasts  of  the  gloomy  results  to  follow  Cobden's  free 
trade  ideas.  They  croaked  just  like  their  American  brethren 
of  to-day  who  are  forty  years  behind  times,  of  the  chaos  and 
ruin  that  was  going  to  over-flow  the  land  if  enlightened  and 
Christian  ideas  of  trade  and  revenue  should  prevail. 

France,  which  stands  midway  between  Germany  and 
England  in  this  regard,  maintains  a  similar  position  in  wages 
and  work;  and  while  her  workmen  do  less  work  per  man 


32 


PKOTECTION  AND  FBEE  TRADE. 


than  those  of  England,  they  do  by  far  the  better  work,  and 
the  more  durable.  France  would  doubtless  soon  be  a  free 
trade  country,  but  for  the  necessity  of  enormous  taxation 
imposed  on  her  by  her  continental  surroundings;  and  while 
we  have  much  to  learn  from  Great  Britain  in  manufacturing, 
we  have  nothing  to  learn  from  highly  protected  Germany. 
"From  all  oilier  nations  who  were  represented  at  the  expo- 
sition (1876)  we  found  something  worth  learning— from 
Germany  nothing.  The  lo»v-priced  labor  of  Germany 
must  be  protected  against  the  high-price  I  labor  of  England 
and  America. 

Another  fact  and  I  will  close  the  discussion  of  wages: 
The  productive  capacity  of  an  operative  in  these  three  coun- 
tries, is  shown  by  the  following  table,  taking  100  as  the 
American  unit: 


COTTON 

WOOL 

SILK 

100 
67 
27M 

100 
77 
60 

100 

68 

I  give  this  table  to  show  the  superiority  of  the  American 
workman  over  all  others  in  the  amount  of  work  done;  and 
to  illustrate  the  folly  of  the  fear  of  the  "pauper  labor  of 
Europe."  This  table  explains  the  fact  that  the  cotton  oper- 
ative of  Massachusetts,  while  he  receives  slightly  larger 
wages  per  day  than  his  English  compeer,  is  actually  paid  less 
wages  for  piece  work.  And  as  regards  the  workers  in  woolens 
and  metals  and  mining,  what  superiority  they  have  in  wages 
raised,  is  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  extra  cost  of 
living,  and  amount  of  work  done. 

The  conclusion  to  all  this  is:  That  protection,  so  far 
from  increasing  the  workingman's  wages,  tends  to  decrease 
them;  while  it  certainly  adds  very  greatly  to  the  expense  of 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


33 


living;  that  free  trade  would  tend  to  increase  his  wages, 
while  it  certainly  would  greatly  decrease  the  cost  of  living 
to  him  and  his.  If  we,  in  America,  really  want  to  protect 
the  workingmen  of  America,  we  may  as  well  adopt  the  ideas 
of  Dermis  Kearney,  and  have  done  with  it.  We  must 
prohibit  emigration,  and  kick  all  foreign  workmen  out  of  the 
country,  and  so  put  an  end  to  foreign  competition  with  our 
workers,  as  the  tariff  prevents  foreign  competition  with  our 
wares.  We  must  apply  the  anti-Chinese  ideas  of  the  Pacific 
Coast,  not  only  to  Chinamen  but  to  all  Europeans.  When 
that  is  done,  we  shall  have  arrived  at  the  blessed  American 
Haven  of  Protection,  in  reality,  for  the  workmen  as  well  as 
the  manufacturer.  As  a  matter  of  fact  protection  was,  and 
is,  asked  for  on  the  grounds  that  wages  are  so  high  that  our 
manufacturers  cannot  compete  with  the  cheap  labor  of 
Europe.  It  is  asked  for,  not  to  raise  or  maintain  high  wages, 
but  simply  to  indemnify  the  employer  foi  the  high  wages  he 
had  to  pay.  Insteid  of  protecting  labor,  as  the  demagogues 
and  protectionists  claim,  it  is  simply  a  scheme  to  protect  cap- 
ital at  the  expense  of  all  kinds  of  labor. 

THE  HOME  MARKET  FOLLY. 

This  is  another  of  the  preposterous  claims  of  protection. 
It  amounts  to  this:  That  if  we  will  kindly  tax  ourselves  by 
an  enormous  amount,  and  so  raise  a  big  subsidy  to  give  to 
the  twentieth  man  among  us,  that  this  twentieth  man  will, 
by  and  by,  become  so  prosperous  and  numerous  (thanks  to 
the  bonus  we  pay  him),  that  he  will  turn  in  and  eat  up  all 
the  American  farmer  raises,  and  so  sacredly  preserve  for 
American  stomachs  only  the  products  of  American  soil. 
This  home  market  humbug  is  a  special  bait  for  the  American 
farmer,  and  as  he  is  supposed  to  be  capable  of  swallowing 
anything,  it  is  taken  for  granted  he  will  readily  swallow  this 
also.    In  effect  it  is  a  renewal  of  the  invitation  to  lift  our- 


34 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


selves  by  the  boot-straps.  It  says  practically,  "Subsidize  a 
host  of  artisans  to  settle  close  by  the  farmers.  Pension  an 
army  of  corn  and  wheat  consumers  to  come  over  from 
Europe  and  come  West  from  the  East,  to  consume  your  pro- 
ducts. Pay  to  the  employers  of  this  host  a  bonus  for  manu- 
facturing goods  at  a  loss,  and  out  of  their  profits  they  will 
pay  you  more  for  your  wheat  and  corn,  your  butter  and  eggs, 
and  milk  and  berries  and  potatoes,  etc."  Now  this  is  just 
what  we  are  doing;  under  compulsion  of  our  Government 
we  are  paying  enormous  sums  annually,  to  induce  foreigners 
to  come  and  buy  our  farm  products  in  America  instead  of  in 
Europe.  The  great  unprotected  is  asked  to  make  up  the 
losses  of  all  these  people,  who,  we  are  told,  can't  make  goods 
here  without  a  loss,  that  they  may  give  the  farmer  better 
prices  out  of  their  gains.  Does  he  get  better  prices  after 
fulfilling  his  portion  of  the  contract?  He  pays  more  for  his 
woolens  and  cottons  by  a  large  sum,  more  for  his  hardware 
and  machinery,  more  for  his  hats,  caps,  boots  and  shoes; 
more  for  his  teaching  and  government  and  law;  more  for  his 
necessities,  more  for  his  pleasures,  more  for  his  freights  and 
general  expenses;  more  for  his  shroud  and  his  coffin — and. 
all  for  nothing. 

For  he  gets  no  higher  price  for  his  products  in  return  for 
all  this.  The  price  of  these  is  established  in  Liverpool  just 
the  same  as  before.  And  it  is  no  great  concern  to  the  farmer 
where  his  wheat  and  pork  are  eaten,  or  by  whom,  so  that  he 
gets  his  money  for  it.  Not  only  does  he  fail  to  receive  any 
benefit  for  it  all,  he  is  actually  damaged,  because,  by  this 
subsidy  business  he  is  forbidden  to  trade  directly  with  a 
great  portion  of  the  outside  world.  So  the  demand  for  and 
the  price  of  wheat  that  he  has  to  sell  is  actually  reduced  by 
this  protection  bonus  of  which  he  pays  the  most.  A  few  mar- 
ket gardeners  may  be  stimulated  and  supported,  but  as  to  the 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


35 


mass  of  farmers,  it  is  simply  impossible  to  protect  them. 
Their  market  is  the  broad  world,  governed  by  the  law  of  sup- 
ply and  demand.  Here  is  one  of  the  root  errors  of  this  home 
market  humbug.  The  other  is  to  be  found  in  this  simple  state- 
ment :  That  protection  does  not  protect.  Of  course  this  is  the 
denial  direct;  but  that  is  just  what  revenue  reformers,  and  free 
traders  assert  and  insist  on;  that,  so  far  from  stimulating 
the  honest  and  permanent  growth  of  American  manufactories, 
our  tariff  handicaps  and  hinders  them;  that  instead  of  fos- 
tering the  best  interests  of  artisans  and  mechanics  and  man- 
ufacturers, it  injures  them;  that  free  trade  will  do  more  to 
build  up  a  home  market  than  protection,  and  not  charge 
anybody  a  cent  for  it;  that  free  trade  will  give  an  increased 
demand  for  the  farmer's  products  by  allowing  direct  trade 
with  all  the  world,  and  besides,  save  costs  of  freight,  insur- 
ance and  exchange,  and  while  conferring  this  blessing,  will 
remove  the  ruinous  burdens  of  protection  from  his  weary 
shoulders;  that  free  trade  will  deal  out  exact  justice  to  all 
business  alike,  will  make  the  rich  pay  their  share  of  govern- 
mental support  by  taxing  property,  instead  of  hungry 
stomachs  and  shivering  bodies;  that  free  trade  will  strike 
at  the  very  roots  of  civil  service  corruption  and  so  in- 
sure civil  service  reform  for  good  and  all,  by  cutting 
down  the  tree  that  bears  the  villainous  fruits  of  cor- 
ruption; that  free  trade  will  reduce  everybody's  expenses, 
and  instead  of  injuring,  will  add  to  the  comfort  and  pros- 
perity of  us  all;  that  free  trade  is  in  the  line  of  political 
progress,  and  the  Christian  theory  of  international  relations, 
and  commerce.  Free  trade  is  not  the  milleDium;  it  is  simply 
improvement  all  along  the  line. 


36 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


DOES  PEOTECTION   PROTECT?— OUR  MARINE. 

There  was  a  time  when  our  seamen  had  a  world-wide 
fame  and  our  sails  were  seen  on  every  sea.  At  present  they 
do  not  "whiten  the  ocean"  any  to  speak  of,  and  we  have  no 
carrying  trade  worth  mentioning.  The  famous  marine  that 
was  the  pride  of  America,  is  gone;  it  has  been  protected 
to  death. 

In  1825  American  vessels  carried  92%  per  cent,  of  the  for- 
eign trade  of  the  country.  In  1860  they  carried  663^  per 
cent  of  the  same.  In  1884  they  carried  only  17  per  cent., 
and  still  we  are  going  on  the  down-hill  grade  in  this  Na- 
tional interest  of  transcendent  importance.  Our  decadence 
on  the  sea  has  become  so  painfully  evident  that,  weary  of 
apologyzing  for  it,  tired  of  hoping  for  betterment,  we  have 
come  to  laugh  at  everything  pertaining  to  the  American  com- 
mercial marine  and  navy  as  a  huge  practical  joke.  It  may  be 
fine  philosophy  to  turn  our  disgrace  into  a  jest.  Let  those  in- 
dulge in  it  who  wish;  but  it  smacks  of  sour  grapes,  when  a 
great  Nation  with  every  natural  advantage  given  it  of  God  to 
excel  on  the  ocean,  quietly  sits  still  and  looking  on  the  ruins 
of  its  most  vital  interests,  turns  to  jesting  over  it. 

America  has  practically  abandoned  the  sea  and  allows 
other  countries  to  carry  her  enormous  trade  for  her  and  to  get 
the  pay  for  the  same.  She  has  lost  her  great  nursery  for 
seamen ;  she  is  simply  ridiculous  in  the  figure  she  cuts  on  the 
great  highway  of  the  world. 

Would  it  not  be  wiser  to  inquire  into  the  reason  for  this 
lamentable  decline  and  see  if  a  halt  cannot  be  called?  Would 
it  not  be  more  becoming  to  nurse  a  righteous  wrath  at  such 
a  disgraceful  state  of  things  than  to  pass  puerile  "witticism," 
long  since  stale  and  tiresome?  Is  it  a  matter  for  laughing 
that  last  year,  according  to  one  estimate,  $128,000,000  went 
into  foreign  ship  owners'  pockets,  and  to  the  supporting  and 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


37 


educating  of  the  seamen  of  Britain,  France,  Germany,  Scan- 
dinavia, and  the  Mediterranean  States?  It  would  appear  diffi- 
cult to  find  anything  funny  for  Americans  in  such  a  stupen- 
dous fact  and  loss. 

Never  was  there  a  land  better  situated  and  endowed  to  be 
the  great  naval  power  of  the  world.  Never  was  there  a  race 
better  adapted  to  the  sea,  or  one  that  has  bred  better  seamen. 
Never  was  there  a  country  so  abundantly  provided  with  the 
material  for  ship-building  in  the  rough;  and  yet,  with  all 
these  patent  facts  staring  us  in  the  face,  with  an  enormous 
coast  line,  an  enormous  trade,  and  a  superabundance  of  fine 
harbors  besides,  we  have  nothing  on  the  sea  to  speak  of. 
Here  is  a  mighty  industry,  and  a  vitally  important  one  for 
National  defence,  in  which  America  ought  to  be  first  amongst 
her  equals,  but  in  which  she  is  actually  and  utterly  insig- 
nificant. 

Our  loss  has  been  others'  great  gain.  In  1860  America 
had  a  tonnage  (entire)  greater  by  a  fifth  than  Britain;  to-day 
no  one  would  be  so  insane  as  to  suggest  even  a  comparison. 
If  there  is  anything  to  mortify  our  Natianal  pride,  this  ought 
to  do  it.  If  there  is  any  interest  of  America  that  needs  doc- 
toring and  helping  it  is  this.  At  present  we  are  sitting 
around  the  death  bed  of  the  American  marine  and  finding  it 
very  amusing.  It  reminds  one  of  Nero  fiddling  over  burn- 
ing Rome. 

"In  the  last  ten  years,"  says  Mr.  Blaine,  the  prince  of  pro- 
tectionists, "the  value  of  the  products  carried  between  this 
and  other  courtries  has  excaeded  $11,000,090,000  a  year,  out 
of  the  carrying  of  which  somebody  has  made  $110,000,000 
per  annum — a  sum  far  larger  than  the  interest  on  the 
National  debt.  And  who  has  made  this  money?  Everybody 
except  the  United  States."  And  his  panacea  would  be  more 
subsidies  and  protection.    That,  too,  right  in  the  face  of 


88 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


the  fact  that  under  the  blight  of  protection,  which  i 
one  kind  of  subsidy,  our  foreign  tonnage  has  declined  fror 
4,400,000  to  about  500,000  tons,  while  the  British  tonnage  en 
gaged  in  the  American  trade,  under  free  trade  has  increase( 
500  per  cent  in  the  same  period.  "This,"  said  Bowker,  "if 
like  curing  a  man  dead  drunk  with  brandy  by  giving  him  ; 
horn  of  whisky." 

What  are  the  causes  of  the  destruction  of  this  magni 
ficent  and  vital  industry,  this  great  element  of  a  home  mar 
ket?  The  direct  answer  generally  given  is — The  war,  anc 
iron  ships.  But  the  war  has  been  over  these  twenty  years 
and  we  ought  to  make  as  good  iron  ships  as  anybody,  or 
failing  in  that,  buy  iron  ships  as  cheaply  as  other  people. 

The  real  cause  of  it  all,  is  the  protective  system  and  its 
results.  And  here  is  the  proof  of  the  assertion:  Grant,  tc 
begin  with,  that  the  civil  war,  by  its  Alabamas,  compelled 
our  marine  to  take  refuge  under  foreign  flags  for  safety. 
Business  knows  no  sentimentalities.  And  so,  when  Amer- 
ican ship-owners  could  get  no  insurance,  and  were  in  daily 
fear  of  the  destruction  of  their  ships,  they  took  the  natura] 
course  of  registering  under  the  foreign  flags,  or  discontinu- 
business.  This,  so  to  speak,  obliterated  our  foreign  tonnage. 
But,  the  war  over,  it  should  naturally  have  returned  to  its 
own  house,  and  would  have  done  so  but  for  the  laws  of  the 
United  States. 

For  monumental  legislative  foolishness,  we  can  safely 
challenge  modern  times  to  furnish  any  parallel  to  the  folly 
of  our  navigation  laws.  They  lie  before  me  as  I  write.  It  is 
to  be  regretted  space  will  not  allow  their  insertion.  But 
their  effect  is  this :  They  forbid  the  American  to  buy  ships 
abroad  for  registry  imder  the  American  flag;  no  foreign-built 
ship  can  be  sailed  under  that  flag;  no  ship  owned  in  part  or 
in  whole  by  any  foreigner,  can  be  sailed  under  that  flag. 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


39 


Now  follw  up  these  facts  by  the  other  facts  caused  by 
our  protective  system,  and  you  will  see  the  reason  why  we 
cannot  have  iron  steamshiDS  as  cheaply  and  easily  as  other 
nations.  For  there  is  a  tax  on  every  article  (almost)  that 
enters  into  the  construction  of  the  modern  steamship;  a  tax 
imposed  by  our  protective  tariff  on  raw  materials  and  man- 
ufactured products  also.  Consequently  these  ships  cannot 
be  built  in  America,  save  at  a  far  greater  cost  than  elsewhere. 
And  you  may  be  sure  no  civilized  country,  save  ours,  has 
such  idiotic  navigation  laws.  As  ships  cannot  be  bought 
abroad;  as  iron  ships,  the  only  ships  that  can  compete  for 
the  foreign  trade,  cannot  be  bought  in  this  country,  save  at 
this  very  great  advance  over  what  foreigners  pay  for  the 
article,  we  take  the  consequences.  That  is,  we  have  no  ships 
to  speak  of,  for  simple  business  reasons;  hence  we  have  and 
can  have  no  carrying  trade,  we  have  no  marine  worthy  of  the 
country. 

What  is  more,  we  never  can  have  any  revival  of  our 
marine  till  these  laws  are  repealed.  They  are  protective  in 
their  nature  and  animus.  You  see,  the  dominant  idea  in 
them  is  to  protect  American  industries.  Hence  to  reiterate 
Americans  are  forbidden  to  buy  ships  where  they  can  be  had 
the  cheapest.  Hence,  (and  here  is  where  protection  cuts  its 
own  throat  in  this  particular)  Americans  are  forbidden  the 
raw  and  manufactured  materials  with  Avhich  to  build  ships 
where  they  can  be  had  the  cheapest.  Hence  Americans  own 
no  ships,  build  no  ships,  have  no  carrying  trade,  and  never 
can  have  under  the  present  conditions.  Hence  the  decline 
of  American  steamship,  and  the  American  merchant  fleet. 

The  condition  of  our  marine  is  the  most  striking  illustra- 
tion we  have  of  the  blundering  selfishness  of  protection.  No- 
where else  does  it  show  its  tendency  so  clearly,  for  nowhere 
has  it  been  so  great  an  incubus  as  here.    It  has  been  more 


40 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


than  that  here,  it  has  been  not  merely  a  load,  to  carry  with 
groans,  but  destruction.  Nowhere  else  has  it  so  completely 
contradicted  and  defeated  itself.  Nowhere  else  does  it  fur- 
nish so  absolute  a  denial  by  fact  of  its  absurd  claim  to  foster 
American  interests  and  create  a  home  market.  For  it  has 
ruined  one  of  our  greatest  and  most  vital  interests,  and  de- 
stroyed a  great  fraction  of  the  home  market.  If  our  marine 
were  what  it  would  have  been  if  simply  let  alone,  if  our  ship 
building  were  what  it  ought  to  be,  and  would  have  been  ere 
this  under  free  trade,  here  would  have  been  a  great  depart- 
ment of  labor  for  mechanics  and  seamen,  a  very  great  mar- 
ket for  our  products  at  home,  a  very  great  addition  to  our 
wealth  and  income,  a  very  great  addition  to  our  National 
defence  and  reputation  and  influence  in  the  world. 

Starting  out  on  its  purely  selfish  principle,  protection 
has  accomplished  the  absolute  reverse  of  what  it  intended. 
It  is  useless  to  deny  this  statement,  for  the  facts  all  prove  it. 
It  is  of  itself  enough  to  condemn  the  system  of  protection, 
by  showing  the  falsity  of  its  claims,  and  proving  its  ignorant 
and  norraw-minded  provincialism,  and  its  unworthiness  to 
be  the  guiding  principle  of  our  legislation.  If  our  Congress 
had  been  all  these  years  studiously  trying  to  build  up  for- 
eign Nations  in  general,  and  Great  Britain  in  particular  (for 
she  has  bean  the  greit  gainer  by  oar  folly),  it  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  been  more  successful  than  it  has  been. 

Our  navigation  laws  are  simply  barbarous.  Our  protec- 
tive tariff  has  ruine  1  our  ship  building,  and  that  in  spite  of 
the  abundance,  convenience,  and  excellence  of  our  building 
material. 

What  our  ocean  interests  need,  or,  in  other  words,  what 
America  needs,  is  simply  liberty  to  buy  ships  where  they  are 
cheapest;  liberty  to  get  ship  material  at  the  lowest  price. 
When  we  have  this  freedom  we  shall  gradually  regain  our 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


41 


lost  trade,  and  trade  directly  ourselves  with  all  the  world. 
We  must  be  free  to  take  our  goods  anywhere  and  bring  back 
freely  the  goods  of  other  Nations  in  exchange,  and  thus  have 
cargos  both  ways.  This,  and  not  subsidies,  is  the  hope  of 
our  marine— the  only  hope.  And  this  asks  for  no  taxation; 
but  instead,  releaves  us  of  the  greatest  tax  we  bear. 

This  freedom,  and  not  subsidies,  has  built  British  com- 
mercial supremacy  on  the  sea.  We  can  never  contest  this 
supremacy  without  the  same  freedom— and  this  means  free 
trade. 


DOES  PROTECTION  PROTECT ? — OUR  MANUFACTURERS. 

This  very  important  question  is  answered  in  the  affirma- 
tive in  the  "of  course"  style  by  the  protectionists,  and  yet  it 
is  annually  becoming  more  and  more  evident  that  our  tariff, 
instead  of  protecting  our  manufacturers,  is  smothering  them. 
The  tariff  feather-bed  of  a  would-be  paternal  Government,  is 
too  much  of  a  feather-bed  for  the  health  of  our  petted  "in- 
fant industries." 

With  that  wonderful  faculty  for  blundering  so  character- 
istic of  all  our  legislation  on  this  great  matter,  our  Congress 
made  a  great  mistake  at  the  very  start.  Professedly  aiming 
at  the  encouragement  of  manufactures,  we  have  all  the  time 
covered  them  with  the  wet  blanket  of  a  tax  on  raw  materials. 
Now,  if  you  go  to  the  continent  of  Europe  amongst  the 
strongly  protective  Nations  there,  yon  will  notice  at  once 
that  not  one  of  them  have  been  so  silly  as  to  lay  a  tax  on 
raw  material.  France,  Canada,  Germany,  Holland,  while  all 
more  or  less  given  to  the  foolishness  of  "protection,"  so- 
called,  are  yet  all  of  them  wise  enough  to  let  in  raw  ma- 
terials free.  We  are  the  only  civilized  Nation,  except  possi- 
sibly  Spain,  that  is  so  consumately  silly  as  to  tax  the  raw 
material  for  our  maunfactures. 


42 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


The  tax  on  raw  material  ranges  from  35  to  65  per  cent, 
on  wool;  from,  in  short,  20  to  65  percent,  ad  valorem  on  hemp, 
iron,  chemicals,  copper,  glass,  coal,  etc.  Now  is  it  not  at  once 
apparent  to  the  most  prejudiced  mind  that  our  manufac- 
turers, with  this  fearful  handicap  to  start  out  with,  can 
never  compete  with  foreign  makers,  who  all  in  common  re- 
ceive their  raw  material  free?  Is  it  not  plain  that  if  this 
raw  material  tax  amounts  in  some  cases  to  more  than  the 
tariff  on  the  manufactured  article  for  the  same,  and  in  all  cases 
(except  cotton)  wipes  out  almost  all  the  tariff  margin  of  pro- 
tection— is  it  not  clear  that  instead  of  helping,  our  tariff  is 
hindering  our  manufacturing  industries?  For  instance: 
Here  are  two  men,  John  Bull  and  Uncle  Sam,  who  start  out 
in  the  making  of  woolen  goods.  J.  Bull  gets  his  raw  wool 
free  of  tax,  wherever  he  can  buy  it  the  cheapest,  and  gener- 
ally trades  the  made  goods  for  the  raw  wool.  Under  these 
simple  conditions  of  common  sense  and  freedom  to  use 
nature's  gifts,  J.  Bull  has  prospered  mightily  in  his  woolen 
manufactures,  although  his  government  does  not  try  to  pro- 
hibit foreign  goods,  but  simply  says  to  him,  "paddle  your 
own  canoe;  I  keep  my  hands  off  of  you  and  your  rival 
equally." 

Uncle  Sam,  however,  is  one  of  those  fellows  commonly 
called  "smartys."  And  so,  under  the  impression  he  is  hurt- 
ing J.  Bull,  Monsieur  Crapeaud,  et  aL,  he  lays  a  tax  on 
everything  indiscriminately.  He  builds  a  Chinese  wall,  in 
the  shape  of  a  tariff,  and  fondly  fancies  that  he  is  "getting 
the  bulge,"  as  he  classically  puts  it,  thereby,  on  the  outside 
world.  Well,  how  does  his  Chinese  wall  work?  If  success- 
ful, it  ought  to  prohibit  foreign  manufactures  from  getting 
into  this  country.  Does  it  do  this?  Not  at  all.  How  does 
it  work  in  woolen  goods?  It  makes  Uncle  Sam's  raw  wool  cost 
from  two  and  a  half  to  twelve  cents  per  pound  more  than  it 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


43 


costs  J.  Bull  and  breaks  him  up  right  in  the  start  And  in 
1880,  while  J.  Bull  sent  to  other  lands  $100,000,000  of  woolen 
goods,  Uncle  Sam  sent  out  only  $200,0o0  of  the  same.  More- 
over while  J.  Bull  exported  or  sold  three  times  as  much  as 
he  imported  or  bought  of  woolens,  Uncle  Sam  bought  175 
times  as  much  as  he  sold.  ( He  sold  §200,000  of  woolens  and 
bought  $350,000,000.) 

One  would  think  this  would  have  made  Uncle  Sam  very 
sick  about  his  woolen  business,  and  when  you  come  to  re- 
gard his  manufactures  of  all  kinds  you  discover  the  same  set 
of  facts.  You  would  naturally  suppose  that  he,  being  one 
who  prides  himself  on  his  "cuteness,"  would  investigate  and 
find  out  what  the  matter  is.  Nothing  of  the  kind.  He  hugs 
his  delusion  the  closer  to  his  breast,  and  wants  to  put  an- 
other story  on  his  Chinese  wall.  Like  Solomon's  fool,  he  is 
wiser  in  his  own  conceit  than  seven  men  who  can  render  a 
reason.  He  has  kept  up  this  suicidal  foolishness  for  a  cen- 
tury, and  his  wall  is  six  times  as  high  as  at  the  start.  Never- 
theless it  fails  to  keep  out  foreign  manufactures,  and  the 
only  "bulge"  he  gets  on  others  by  his  over-reaching  smart- 
ness, is  precisely  the  kind  of  a  bulge  a  mis-shapen  hump- 
backed cripple  has  on  the  statue  of  the  Apollo  Belvidere. 
The  only  way  in  which  the  American  protective  tariff  has 
operated  is  to  more  and  more  restrict  the  American  manu- 
facturer to  his  own  country,  and  more  and  more  stimulate 
the  business  and  prosperity  of  his  foreign  rivals.  For,  if  one 
will  only  look  at  the  facts  and  be  ruled  by  them,  the  conclu- 
sion could  only  be  of  one  nature.  The  trouble  with  America 
has  been,  and  is  to-day,  that  it  permits  itself  to  be  deceived 
by  the  claims  of  protectionists  that  protection  is  necessary 
for  our  labor,  our  manufacturers,  and  our  youthful  country. 
America  takes  all  these  assertions  as  solemn  truths — and 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


that,  although  all  the  facts  and  experience  and  all  the  fig- 
ures unite  to  contradict  these  assertions. 

For  the  facts  say  that  in  every  case  where  a  Nation  has 
taken  the  scales  from  its  eyes,  and  adopted  more  liberal 
ideas  about  trade  and  commerce,  immediate,  great  and  per- 
manent improvement  has  followed.  Within  ten  years  after 
the  abolition  of  the  last  vestige  of  trade  barbarism,  commonly 
called  protection,  the  exports  of  Great  Britain  were  doubled, 
and  to  this  day  the  increase  has  been  kept  up,  and  is  in  excess 
of  the  increase  of  her  population.  France  enjoyed  "protec- 
tion," of  a  prohibitive  tariff  up  to  1868.  At  that  time  compar- 
ative free  trade  took  its  place  (absolute  in  regard  to  raw  ma- 
terials). The  results  are  seen  in  the  fact  that  the  exports  of 
France  in  1873,  immediately  after  a  ruinous  war,  were  nearly 
double  what  they  were  in  1860.  And  the  exports  of  both  of 
these  countries  are  mainly  those  very  products  of  their  home 
industries  which  we  paralyze  here  in  America  by  a  heavy  tax 
on  raw  materials. 

Germany,  even  highly  protected  Germany,  long  ago  saw 
the  ruinous  folly  of  this  raw  material  tax  and  abolished  it. 
It  took  Prussia  a  long  time  to  get  this  wisdom  impressed 
upon  the  north  German  Zollverein;  but  the  good  work  was 
done,  and  its  effect  was  the  same  as  in  the  case  just  presented. 
And  although  Germany  is  hard  put  for  revenue,  and  in  com- 
mon with  France  is  forced  to  lay  heavy  taxes  through  the 
tariff  which  she  would  gladly  remit  if  she  could,  nevertheless 
she  will  not  tax  the  raw  material  of  her  manufactures.  Only 
recently,  when  an  effort  was  made  to  tax  wool  in  the  Reich- 
stag, the  answer  was,  that  it  was  impossible  to  levy  such  a 
tax.  These  three  Nations  are  the  ones  of  whom  at  first  or 
second  hand,  we  buy  nearly  all  our  imports.  What  trade  we 
have  with  South  America  is  mainly  through  them.  What  a 
humiliating  confession  we  have  in  this  fact. 


PROTECTION  AND  FEEE  TRADE. 


+5 


We  have  stated  that  protection  in  order  to  really  protect 
our  laborers  and  our  manufacturers,  must  prohibit  emigra- 
tion for  the  protection  of  the  first;  and  must  prohibit  impor- 
tation of  foreign  goods  to  protect  the  last.  It  does  not  even 
pretend  to  do  the  first,  and  it  fails  miserably  in  its  efforts  to 
do  the  last.  Since  1860,  while  England,  France  and  Ger- 
many were  removing  the  raw  material  taxes,  we  have  been 
following  the  highly  protective  policy  on  nearly  all  things, 
raw  and  manufactured.  As  we  have  seen,  their  exports  have 
doubled,  while  ours  remained  stationary,  or  decreased.  In 
fact,  our  exports  of  manufactures  are  so  small  as  to  be  un- 
worthy of  mentioning  beside  these  other  Nations.  We  send 
nothing,  or  next  to  nothing,  abroad,  but  our  unprotected  and 
heavily  burdened  agricultural  interests. 

"In  1860  our  exports  of  industries  now  protected  were 
nearly  seven  per  cent.;  in  1872  they  were  not  quite  four  per 
cent.;  in  1880  they  were  about  five  per  cent."  This  is  a  mag- 
nificent showing,  is  it  not,  to  result  from  nearly  a  century  of 
protection,  with  the  last  twenty-five  years  by  far  the  heav- 
iest? This  is  a  wonderful  result  to  secure  from  all  the  sys- 
tem has  cost  us. 

And  through  it  all  we  have  continued  to  import  heavily, 
and  most  heavily  of  the  very  articles  most  heavily  protected, 
viz : — Woolens,  silks,  iron  and  steel,  cottons,  flax,  hemp,  tin, 
leather  and  chemicals;  so  it  is  clearly  true  that  protection 
has  failed  to  protect.  Of  metals  and  textile  fabrics,  the  most 
heavily  protected,  we  imported  about  $200,000,000  in  1880, 
despite  the  tariff;  and  at  the  same  time  we  exported  $24,000,- 
000  of  the  same;  and  in  1883  we  imported  $225,000,000  of 
these.  And  here,  as  bearing  on  the  statement  that  by  our 
raw  material  tax  we  neutralize  all  the  benefits  claimed  to 
inure  from  protection,  we  would  mention  the  fact  that  nearly 
one-half  of  our  exports  of  manufactured  metal  and  textile 


46 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


goods  in  this  year  were  cottons,  and  that  in  cottons  the  raw 
material  is  free. 

To  sum  up  the  statements  of  this  letter:  First — protec- 
tion fails  to  protect  our  manufactures,  since  in  spite  of  it  we 
continue  to  import  in  immense  quantities  manufactured 
goods,  and  especially  those  we  aim  to  protect  the  heaviest  or 
prohibit  the  most,  while  our  exports  of  made  goods  sink  into 
utter  insignificance  beside  those  of  France  and  Germany, 
and  into  absolute  nothingness  beside  those  of  Great  Britain. 
Second — Protection  has  not  protected  and  does  not  now  pro- 
tect our  infant  industries  (100  years  old),  because  it  taxes 
heavily  the  raw  materials  from  which  our  manufacturers 
must  make  their  goods.  And  thus  by  this  tax  on  raw  ma- 
terial our  tariff  paralyzes  these  very  industries  it  claims  to 
foster;  and  so  burdens  them  by  the  enhanced  cost  of  mater- 
ials as  to  make  it  impossible  for  them  to  compete  with  their 
rivals. 

Obviously,  therefore,  the  first  step  in  revenue  reform 
should  be  to  make  absolutely  free  all  raw  material. 

It  is  too  late  now  to  discuss  the  question  as  to  whether  in 
the  past  our  tariff  system  has  assisted  manufactures  or  not. 
So  long  as  our  manufactures  were  unable  to  supply  the  home 
demand,  it  may  have  been  beneficial  to  a  few  thousand 
among  our  millions.  But  now  the  situation  is  this:  Our 
manufactures  have  outgrown  in  capacity  the  home  demand 
and  they  must  have  foreign  markets  to  provide  them  full 
employment,  and  these  they  can  never  have  under  our  tariff. 
The  only  persons  greatly  benefited  to-day,  are  our  raw 
material  monopolists.  These  reap  nearly  all  the  profits. 
Take  pig  iron  as  an  instance.  No  country  in  the  world  is  so 
generously  provided  with  raw  iron  as  the  United  States,  and 
nowhere  can  it  be  produced  any  cheaper  than  right  here. 
Yet  the  tariff  tax  protection  on  pig-iron  amounts  to  $7.00  per 


PROTECTION  AND  FBEE  TRADE. 


47 


ton,  none  of  which  goes  to  the  laborer,  or  the  manufacturer. 
It  all  goes  to  the  producer  of  raw  iron. 

It  ought  to  be  clear  beyond  any  need  of  argument  that 
with  this  high  tax  on  raw  iron  our  manufacturers  of  iron  and 
steel  can  never  compete  with  their  foreign  rivals  who  get 
their  pig-iron  free  of  duty.  The  result  of  it  comes  simply  to 
this:  That  they  are  getting  no  benefit  from  the  protection 
they  fancy  necessary  to  their  existence.  They  are  really 
smothered  by  it,  and  hence  the  whole  country  is  harmed,  for 
our  iron  manufacturers  are  in  a  position  to  export  enor- 
mously if  they  could  be  freed  from  the  tax  on  pig-iron.  If 
they  could  run  at  full  blast  much  more  work  would  be  af- 
forded, more  wages  would  be  paid  to  the  laborers,  and  more 
profits  accrue  to  the  manufacturers.  But  as  it  stands,  when 
our  mills  run  at  full  speed,  their  only  market  bemg  at 
home,  it  is  soon  glutted.  Then  they  shut  down  and  both 
capital  and  labor  is  forced  to  be  idle. 

And  here  is  one  secret  of  the  failure  of  the  policy  of  pro- 
tection: Most  of  the  profits  our  manufacturers  receive  from 
the  enhanced  price  paid  by  consumers  here,  are  used  up  in 
paying,  first,  the  raw  material  tax;  second,  the  losses  caused 
by  the  frequent  depressions  and  stoppages  which  are  the  fatal 
sequeiices  of  unnatural  interference  with  business. 

Says  Mr.  Sargent,  a  hardware  manufacturer  of  New 
Haven:  "Nothing  prevents  the  American  manufacturer  from 
successfully  competing  with  the  European  manufacturers  in 
all  the  markets  of  the  world  in  which  they  would  meet  on 
an  equal  footing,  except  the  protective  tariff  on  materials, 
which  prevents  the  free  exercise  of  their  judgment  in  select- 
ing them  wherever  found  and  from  bringing  them  to  their 
factories  at  free  trade  prices."  Elsewhere  he  says:  "The 
market  price  of  the  pig-iron  in  this  country,  that  costs  the 
producer  no  more  than  it  costs  the  producer  in  foreign  coun- 


4- 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


tries,  averages  more  than  fifty  per  cent,  higher  than  our  for- 
eign competitors  pay."  And  the  facts  are  about  the  same 
with  all  other  common  metals  used  in  manufactures. 

He  claims  that  "with  free  trade  in  raw  material  the  Amer- 
ican mechanics  and  workmen,  under  the  guidance  of  enter- 
prising American  manufacturers,  need  not  fear  any  compe- 
tition, and  need  no  protection  that  is  not  in  their  own  level 
heads  and  strong  arms."  And  concludes:  "Unless  American 
manufacturers  are  soon  relieved  from  the  burden  of  the 
protective  tariff  on  raw  materials,  so  that  they  can  employ  a 
very  largely  increased  number  of  people  in  manufactures 
for  export,  the  workingmen  of  this  country  will  soon  be 
sharply  competing  for  employment  with  'the  pauper  labor  of 
Europe'  working  at  their  side.  With  free  trade  in  raw  ma- 
terials, the  manufacturers  of  this  country  would  be  able  to 
employ  all  the  increasing  surplus  of  labor  in  the  country, 
and  meet  successfully  the  manufacturers  of  Europe  without 
lowering  the  present  condition  of  our  wage  earners,  but  sup- 
ply them  with  a  better  living  through  the  reduced  cost  of 
merchandise  under  freedom  trade." 

As  a  commentary  on  the  American  dread  of  competition 
with  Europe's  cheap  labor,  and  also  on  the  claims  of  pro- 
tection as  to  wages  and  workers,  it  should  here  be  said,  that 
the  manufactures  we  do  export  are  almost  entirely  those 
articles  in  which  the  principal  cost  consists  of  labor  or  finish* 
Whereas  merchandise  of  metals,  the  principal  cost  of  which 
consists  in  coarse  material,  cannot  be  and  are  not  exported 
at  all.  And  this  is  a  land  blessed  beyond  all  others  in  raw 
metals. 

Says  James  Means,  the  famous  Boston  boot  and  shoe 
maker,  in  an  address  to  his  employes  giving  them  his  reason 
for  condemning  the  protective  system  as  injurious  to  labor- 
ers and  the  whole  country:    "The  only  'peotection'  which 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


49 


the  American  workingman  needs  is  protection  from  the  Gov- 
ernment, which  now  grinds  him  down  with  needless  taxes 
upon  his  necessaries  of  life.  When  our  labor  is  relieved  of 
these  taxes,  its  products  will  be  reduced  in  cost  as  to  be  sal- 
able in  the  markets  of  the  world,  and  our  unemployed  labor 
will  find  work;  but  while  the  oppression  remains,  thousands 
must  be  idle,  because  our  goods  are  shut  out  from  foreign 
markets  by  the  wall  which  protectionists  have  built  around 
our  country."  And  he  gives  as  the  one  reason  why  his  own 
manufacturing  has  not  suffered  as  others,  the  fact  that  raw 
hides  have  escaped  tariff  taxation  and  so  are  free. 

Even  a  slight  examination  into  the  burdens  under  which 
our  woolen  manufacturers  labor  ought  to  suffice  to  convince 
anyone  that,  so  far  from  protecting,  our  tariff  is  hindering 
them.  What  tha  burden  of  the  tax  on  raw  wool  amounts  to 
alone,  is  sufficient  to  stifle  this  most  important  department 
of  manufacturing.  Schoenhof  estimates  that  a  pound  of 
scoured  foreign  grown  wool  costs  from  thirty- five  to  forty 
cents  more  to  the  American  than  the  Englishman;  that  is, 
the  tax  amounts  to  from  37^  to  77  per  cent,  on  the  raw  ma- 
terial. But  this  is  not  all.  There  is  a  tax  of  75  cents  per 
ton  on  coal,  to  benefit  the  Pennsylvania  mine  owners.  Hence 
the  coals  of  Nova  Scotia  cannot  be  used,  but  our  manufac- 
ture^ must  buy  of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  coal  owners  there 
are  very  careful  never  to  let  the  output  of  coal  amount  to  a 
glut,  and  so  make  and  keep  their  own  price. 

But  besides  these  disadvantages,  our  wonderful  tariff  adds 
terribly  to  the  cost  of  the  American  wool  manufacturer's 
machinery.  Iron  is  taxed  60  per  cent.,  bar  iron  75  per  cent., 
and  steel  45  per  cent.,  and,  of  course,  this  enhances  greatly 
the  cost  of  his  finished  machinery  as  against  his  British 
rival. 

Again,  the  cost  of  his  factory  buildings  is  very  much 


50  PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


greater.  His  "niachineryjand  buildings,"  the  same  authority 
maintains,  "cost  fully  twice  as  much."  And  this  of  course 
doubles  his  interest  charges,  and  increases  his  taxes.  Else- 
where  Schoenhof  says:  "It  would  be  a  moderate  estimate  to 
say  that  protection  adds  fully  75  cents  to  the  cost  of  a  yard  of 
cloaking  that  is  now  (1884)  sold  at  prices  ranging  from  31.75 
to  &2.00  per  yard." 

Is  it  not  perfectly  clear  that  this  tremendous  dead  weight 
of  extra  cost  is  enough  to  at  once  forbid  American  competi- 
tion with  foreign  woolens?    All  this  tax  on  raw  wool,  coal 
machinery,  buildings,  with  the  increased  interest  and  taxes 
is  a  sheer,  dead  load,  a  fearful  handicap.    And  it  is  all  due 
to  our  protective  tariff  so  called.  The  woolen  manufacturers 
need  only  to  pray  to  be  delivered  from  their  over-zealous 
friends.    Give  them  this  wool  at  the  same  rate  others  abroad 
get  it,  and  abolish  all  the  taxes  on  all  raw  materials  that  en- 
ter into  their  business,  and  they  would  soon,  or  at  once,  be 
able  to  make  woolens  as  cheaply  as  their  foreign  competitors. 
Allow  them  a  moderate  tariff  protection  for  a  time  if  you 
wish,  until  they  can  settle  down  to  the  new  conditions,  and 
they  would  soon  practically  abolish  the  need  of  importing 
foreign  woolens;  or,  if  that  should  continue  in  a  decree  ow- 
ing to  the  demands  of  taste  and  fashion,  it  would  be  far 
more  than  made  up  to  them  by  the  foreign  markets  that 
could  then  buy  and  would  buy  their  goods.  They  could  then 
attord  to  sell  their  goods  at  prices  as  low  as  the  lowest.  And 
that  achieved,  who  doubts  the  American  manufacturer  would 
hold  his  own  with  the  world? 

These  facts  and  arguments  apply  with  more  or  less  force 
to  all  our  manufacturing  industries.  But  America  seems 
crazed  on  this  subject  of  protection  and  will  not  listen  to 
reason,  apparently.  Signs  are  not  wanting,  however,  which 
allow  the  hope  that  suicidal  raw  material  taxes  may  soon  be 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


51 


abolished,  and  so  the  incubus  removed  from  our  manufac- 
turing interests. 

Grant  that  protection  has  artificially  stimulated  the 
woolen  and  iron  industries  for  a  time,  and  rushed  much  more 
;apital  than  was  needed  into  mills,  yet  the  end  has  invariably 
)een  over-production,  and  ruinous  competition,  followed  by 
eaction,  stoppages,  and  in  many  cases  utter  ruin;  and  all  the 
vhile  this  great  Nation  paying  the  bills,  in  greatly  enhanced 
prices,  for  everything,  to  no  use.    The  fearful  prostration  of 
hese  industries  in  1875-79,  was  owing  to  these  causes,  when 
•rotection  was  at  its  climax.    Nothing  saved  us  then  but 
>ur  agricultural  interests  and  fine  crops.    All  the  way 
hrough  it  is  one  dismal  story  of  delusion,  folly  and  loss; — 
he  unprotected  industries  carrying  on  their  giant  shoulders 
he  protected  ones.    And  these,  the  result  of  what  an  hon- 
stly  indignant  manufacturer  calls,  "a  system  that  grinds 
geryone,  does  cruel  injury  to  a  whole  Nation  of  working 
eople,  and  good  to  no  one  but  a  few  monopolists  and  tax- 
atherers.     It  may  be  safely  asserted  that  the  corruption 
£  our  politics  is  largely  due  to  protection,  and  the  mania  for 
■overnment  aid  and  subsidies  engendered  thereby." 

The  facts  given  in  this  letter  anyone  can  verify  for  him- 
>lf  if  he  really  wants  to..  They  are  certainly  sufficient  to 
low  that  our  manufacturers  can  get  along  as  well  if  not 
itter,  if  free  to  act  for  themselves  in  the  world  without  any 
iternal  coddling,  especially  when  this  so  called  protection 
lly  acts  to  keep  them  in  the  infant  state.  Infantile  they 
ill  be  forever  under  present  conditions  of  "our  well-bal- 
lced  tariff" — save  the  mark.  Only  give  our  arts  and  man- 
'actures  free  material  all  around  and  they  will  leave  the 
iiculous  state  of  babyhood  suprisingly  soon.  Our  com- 
erce  would  revive  then,  also,  and  all  the  rest  of  our  many 
iling  millions  would  be  relieved  of  their  worst  burdens  of 
xation. 


52 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


WHAT  DOES  FREE  TEADE  PROMISE? 

It  is  necessary  to  pass  by,  as  unworthy  of  serious  con- 
sideration, the  assertion  of  protectionists,  that  if  we  reform 
our  tariff  so  as  to  eliminate  the  protective  element  and  idea? 
we  shall  be  "flooded"  with  the  tons  of  goods  which  foreigners 
would  at  once  bring  over  here  to  give  away  to  us,  so  as  to 
break  down  our  industries.  If  they  wanted  to  do  this,  or 
dreamed  of  such  an  absurd  piece  of  business,  they  could  do 
it  now  as  well  as  then.  All  they  would  have  to  do,  would  be 
to  let  us  have  their  goods  free  at  New  York,  leaving  us  to 
pay  their  duty.  It  would  ruin  all  the  manufacturers  of 
Europe  in  one  year,  would  this  precious  scheme.  It  is  too 
childish  to  receive  further  notice. 

The  "diversity  of  industries"  argument  is  met  by  the  sim- 
ple statement,  that  revenue  reform  with  ultimate  free  trade 
in  view,  would  build  up,  not  destroy,  this  diversity  of  indus- 
tries which  all  agree  is  so  desirable  for  every  nation. 

CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM. 

The  reform  of  the  civil  service  would  be  the  natural  se- 
quence of  free  trade.  Everyone  knows  what  a  figure  this 
question  of  the  reform  of  our  service  has  cut  in  the  politics 
of  late  years.  An  enormous  amount  of  labor,  thought, 
speech  and  printer's  ink  has  been  expended  in  the  effort  to 
bring  it  about.  In  spite  of  all  this  it  is  difficult  to  see 
wherein  any  real  reform  of  our  civil  service  has  been  accom- 
plished. Success  in  this  most  laudible  political  and  public 
aim  seems  as  far  off  as  ever,  or  nearly  so.  Everyone  who 
has  studied  the  practical  workings  of  our  civil  service  sees  at 
once  how  liable  our  customs  service  is  to  be  turned  into  a 
great  organ  of  partisan  politics,  and  that  it  has  been  the 
principal  source  of  our  political  corruptions.  In  fact,  our 
custom  houses  are  the  very  center  of  the  whole  matter;  and 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


33 


I  so  long  as  there  are  so  many  custom  house  offices  to  be  filled, 
a  so  long  as  our  complicated  and  absurd  tariff  makes  all  these 
4  custom  house  officials  necessary,  just  so  long  will  civil  ser- 
3  vice  reform  be  impossible. 

I      All  the  efforts  to  bring  about  this  reform  in  the  past  have 
]  failed  because  they  did  not  go  at  the  root  of  the  matter.  Our 
i0  civil  service  doctor's  have  been  treating  the  patient's  symp- 
„  toms,  instead  of  looking  for  the  cause  of  the  disease  and  re- 
I  moving  it.    You  cannot  cure  a  man  of  ague  who  lives  in  the 
j  center  of  a  pestilent  swamp.    You  must  either  drive  the  man 
put  to  a  healthier  air  or  you  must  abolish  the  swamp.  Well, 
our  custom  houses  are  the  miasmatic  swamps  to  our  civil  ser- 
vice.   If  you  want  a  healthy  service,  freed  from  and  separate 
from  corruption,  abolish  the  swamps. 

The  proper  way  to  reform  a  tree  that  has  produced  evil 
fruit,  and  in  spite  of  every  care  and  cultivation  continues  to 
produce  evil  fruit,  is  to  cut  it  down  and  cast  it  into  the  fire. 
Abolish  the  custom  houses  and  you  accomplish  civil  service 
reform  at  once.  The  cure  is  radical;  but  the  only  way  to  treat 
,a  tumor  that  poisons  a  patient's  system  is  to  remove  it — to  cut 
it  out.  This  can  be  done  only  in  one  way,  and  that  is  by 
commencing  a  reform  of  the  tariff  which  shall  lead  first  to 
the  abolition  of  raw  material  duties,  then  to  a  tariff  for  rev- 
enue, and  ultimately  to  free  trade.  I  submit  it  is  an  object 
worthy  of  any  man's  patriotism  to  work  for  such  a  clean, 
clear  cut,  practical  program;  for,  when  accomplished,  it 
would  not  only  purify  our  civil  service,  but  it  would  make  a 
great  saving  of  expense.  It  would  put  a  stop  to  the  wasting 
of  millions  iu  building  and  keeping  up  our  custom  houses; 
it  would  save  millions  of  direct  expense  for  the  salaries  of 
these  officials  (which  in  1870  amounted  to  eight  millions  of 
dollars);  and,  more  than  all  this,  it  would  save  the  people 
of  this  country  the  hundreds  of  millions  annually  taxed  out 


• 


54 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


of  them  by  the  indirect  and  senseless  cost  of  our  present1 
protective  tariff,  so  called. 

MANUFACTUKEKS. 

Free  trade  brought  about' in  a  reasonable,  gradual  way, 
instead  of  harming  our  manufacturers,  would  be  the  greatest 
possible  blessing  to  them.  For  it  would  remove  all  the 
present  heavy  burdens  upon  them,  remove  tax  on  materials, 
lessen  the  cost  of  building,  machinery  and  interest,  and 
throw  open  the  markets  of  the  world  to  our  made  goods. 
We  have  become  too  great  a  manufacturing  people  to  bear 
any  longer  the  swaddling  clothes  of  the  protective  policy.  We 
must  do  something  to  assist  our  manufactures,  and  free  trade 
alone  can  do  that.  Any  fair  mind  which  is  disposed  to  do 
the  evidence  in  the  case  justice,  must  see  that  protection 
from  its  selfishness  and  glaring  contradictions  cannot  pro- 
tect our  manufacturers.  All  the  supposed  benefits  derived 
from  the  high  prices  to  the  consumer  of  made  goods,  are 
offset  or  over-balanced  by  the  enhanced  cost  of  production 
that  by  our  protective  system  is  forced  on  the  manufacturer. 
The  straight- jacket  of  protection  must  be  removed. 

IjABOK. 

Free  trade  would  assist  the  great  mass  of  the  workers  of 
the  land  at  once  and  permanently.  Wages,  as  we  have  seen, 
are  not  determined  by  tariff,  but  by  the  laws  of  supply  and 
demand,  the  productiveness  of  the  labor  itself,  the  style  of 
living  and  the  natural  advantages  of  this  country  in  its 
great  supply  of  good  cheap  land  and  abundance  of  every 
kind  of  material.  What  the  tariff  can  and  does  affect  is  the 
purchasing  power  of  money,  and  this  it  affects  disastrously 
for  the  laborer,  no  matter  what  his  labor  may  be. 

Says  Prof.  Sumner:  "The  truth  in  regard  to  protection 

1 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE.  55 

is,  that  it  lessens  the  amount  of  comfort  and  well-being  of 
the  whole  people  compared  with  what  they  might  have  had 
for  the  labor  and  capital  expended  by  them.  They  have  less 
and  poorer  food,  clothing,  light,  fuel,  house-room,  books,  ed- 
ucation, leisure,  etc.,  etc.,  than  they  might  have  had,  taking 
the  hours  they  labor,  the  capital  at  their  disposal  and  the  re- 
sources of  the  land  as  they  are.  But  the  scale  of  comfort  is 
so  high  on  the  average,  in  a  new  country  with  its  fresh  re- 
sources, that  the  people  do  not  appreciate  how  much  better 
off  they  ought  to  be  than  they  are.  A  man  in  distress  will 
make  energetic  efforts  to  get  what  he  might  have;  a  man  in 
comfort  will  count  the  cost  of  securing"  something  more,  and 
he  may  submit  rather  fight. 

"Free  trade  will  come  about  here  by  the  gradual  growth 
of  the  conviction  that  protection  is  all  a  mistake  from  begin- 
ing  to  end — for  the  protected  as  well  as  the  others;  and  then, 
when  the  people  go  back  to  read  the  platitudes  with  which 
our  contemporaries  satisfy  themselves  about  protection,  they 
will  feel  the  same  astonishment  that  we  do,  that  it  took  past 
generations  so  long  to  learn  religious  toleration,  free  speech, 
free  pi-ess,  or  any  other  development  of  liberty." 

Free  trade  will  not  only  add  greatly  to  the  comfort  and 
well-being  of  the  laborer,  but  it  will  also  tend  in  this  way 
to  lessen  the  stern  and  growing  hostility  of  labor  against 
capital.  By  relieving  the  unprotected  host  of  our  people  of 
the  present  weight  of  indirect  protective  taxation,  and  thereby 
cheapening  all  they  need  and  enlarging  all  their  facilities 
and  comforts,  it  will  tend  to  make  them  more  contented  with 
their  lot  and  less  given  to  strikes  and  trades  unions,  and  so 
the  general  peace  and  prosperity  of  all  classes  would  be 
assured. 

Free  trade  will  not  only  assist  our  industries,  but  will 
add  to  them  by  opening  the  only  possible  way  to  the  revival 


56 


PKOTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


of  one  of  the  very  greatest  and  most  neecessary  of  our  in- 
dustries, our  commercial  marine,  the  carrying  trade,  and 
ship  building. 

This  latter  is  uecessarily  one  mainly  of  assertions.  These 
assertions,  however,  have  all  been  argued  over  and  consid- 
ered in  previous  articles;  it  is  both  unnecessary  and  out  of 
the  question  to  reproduce  these  arguments  with  their  .back- 
ing of  facts  here. 

THE  MORAL,  SIDE. 

Free  trade  is  in  the  line  of  political  progress.  Jt  is  a 
practical  carrying  out  of  the  Christian  doctrine  that  all  men 
are  brethren.  The  idea  in  protection  is  that  we  should  aim 
solely  at  a  selfish  development  of  our  own  interests,  and 
with  this  selfish  aim  it  naturally  ends  in  failure  to  accom- 
plish that  aim.  The  object  of  protection  is  to  abolish  im- 
ports regardless  of  the  cost  -  to  our  people,  and  yet  while  the 
duties  are  twice  as  high  as  those  of  any  other  Nation  we  are 
the  heaviest  importers  of  manufactured  goods  of  them  all. 
Protection  takes  the  position,  that  Nations  are  natural  ene- 
mies. Free  trade,  on  the  contrary,  holds  that  Nations,  in- 
stead of  being  natural  enemies,  are  natural  friends;  and  that 
in  a  universal  prosperity  and  reciprocity  of  tralo,  each  Na- 
tion will  find  its  own  best  estate. 

The  moral  question  which  lies  at  the  very  roots  of  free 
trade,  is,  after  all,  the  one  argument  that  outweighs  all 
others.  "Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you, 
do  ye  even  so  to  them,  for  this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets." 
This  rule  of  the  great  Master  of  Christendom  applies  pro- 
foundly to  this  whole  matter.  Says  Sherman:  "He  who  ad- 
vocates a  protective  tariff  is  worse  than  the  Jews  of  old.  He 
would  teach  us  to  hate  not  only  our  enemies,  but  our  neigh- 
bors and  friends  also.    His  gospel  is,  'Curse  them  that  bless 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


you,  hate  them  that  do  good  to  you,  have  no  dealings  with 
them  that  pray  for  you.'  For  all  the  hatred  of  protectionist 
teachers  is  directed  against  Christian  Nations,  and  the  more 
closely  any  Nation  is  allied  to  us  in  religion,  the  more  they 
strive  to  poison  the  minds  of  our  people  against  it.  They 
gloat  over  exaggerated  accounts  of  the  sufferings  of  foreign 
workmen,  caused  by  the  reduction  of  American  demand  for 
their  products.  Their  avowed  object  is  to  starve  out  the 
workingmen  of  Europe,  and  to  force  them  to  leave  their  own 
land  to  come  here  and  compete  directly  with  American  labor. 

"The  whole  system  of  so  called  protection,  although  cov- 
ered with  a  more  respectable  veil,  and  supported  by  multi- 
tudes of  well-meaning  Christian  men,  has  its  roots  in  the 
same  narrow  spirit  of  selfishness  which  sustained  slavery, 
and  will,  I  hope  within  my  short  lifetime,  be  bauished  from 
this  Christian  land." 


WHAT  IS  TO  BE  DONE  ABOUT  IT? 

As  a  summary  of  the  position  of  revenue  reformers  re- 
gafding  this  whole  question,  it  should  be  said  that  they 
m  lintain  this  simple  proposition:  The  United  States  has 
prospered  in  spite  of  the  great  burdens,  and  injustice  and 
foolishness  of  the  protective  tariff.  Our  great  extent  of  ter- 
ritory comprising  every  clime,  and  such  a  variety  of  produc- 
tions, has  enabled  us,  in  connection  with  the  other  resources 
and  advantages  of  a  new  and  wealthy  land,  to  carry  all  this 
and  prosper  in  spite  of  it.  We  have  had  absolute  free  trade 
between  the  States  themselves.  This  alone  would  have,  and 
has,  saved  us. 

Bnt  this  alone  will  not  do  hereafter.  Already  we  are  be- 
ginning to  have  some  of  the  social  troubles,  and  labor  and 
economy  liffi  mlties  of  older  1  mds.     The  Chines  w  ill  i  lea 


58 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


will  have  to  come  down,  and  we  must  look  to  a  wider  market 
for  our  manufacturers  md  hence  a  wider  field  for  our  labor 
and  capital  than  simply  our  own  country.  We  must  look 
forward  to  entering  directly  and  sternly  into  competition  for 
the  South  American  and  Mexican  markets  in  particular,  and 
other  markets  in  general. 

It  is  a  notorious  fact  that  every  town  of  any  importance 
is  anxious,  for  obvious  reasons,  to  have  raannfacturing  con- 
cerns established  in  their  midst.  But  how  can  this  be  done, 
except  in  a  small  way  here  and  there,  in  the  west  especially, 
so  long  as  there  are  to-day  more  manufacturing  establish- 
ments than  there  are  markets  for  their  wares.  That  is,  our 
capacity  to  manufacture  is  already  gone  beyond  the  home 
demand.  Beyoad  question  a  wider  field  must  be  had.  In- 
stead of  sending  only  a  pittiful  fraction  of  the  goods  bought 
by  the  Spanish  and  Brazilian- American  States,  we  should 
send  the  lion's  share.  We  bonght  $176,000,000  of  their  pro- 
ducts in  1880,  and  in  return  sold  them  only  $58,000,000  of 
our  own;  and  of  this  small  amount  only  one-third  consisted 
of  manufactures.  This  is  all  we  sell  to  a  neighboring  popu- 
lation as  large  as  our  own,  almost.  Of  Brazil  we  bought 
fifty-two  millions  and  sold  but  eight  and  one-half  millions; 
of  Cuba  we  bought  sixty-five  millions,  and  sold  eleven  mil- 
lions; the  balance  we  paid  by  exchange  on  London,  taken 
in  payment  for  our  cotton  and  other  farm  products.  What 
a  humiliating  commentary  on  our  enterprise  and  economic 
policy?  We  want  and  must  have  more  room  for  our  wares 
and  our  labor  if  we  are  ever  to  become  a  greater  manufac- 
turing people,  and  we  can  only  get  this  by  the  open  path, 
of  tariff  reform,  and  never  by  the  blind  alleys  and  costly 
waste  of  subsidies  to  shipping  and  manufactures. 

What,  then,  should  we  do  to  relieve  our  toilers  of  the 
useless  burdens  of  protection,  and  give  our  capital  and  labor 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


59 


this  wider  field?  To  accomplish  both  of  these  great  and 
wise  ends,  is  annually  becoming  more  and  more  necessary. 
And  the  obvious  and  only  way  is  to  enter  upon  a  gradual 
and  systematic  revision  of  our  tariff,  with  free  raw  material 
as  the  first  step;  the  end  being  to  attain  this  revision  with 
as  little  disturbance  as  possible  to  vested  interests,  and  so 
permitting  them  to  have  time  to  accommodate  themselves 
to  the  new  and  coming  state  of  free  trade.  There  should  be 
no  rash  and  wild  plunges,  and  nobody  advocates  such. 

WHAT  IS  A  TARIFF  FOR  REVENUE? 

A  tariff  for  revenue  is  a  taxation  on  imports,  with  the  one 
distinct  object  of  collecting  sufficient  money  for  the  needs  of 
Government.  It  would  be  levied  for  that  end,  and  yet 
would  or  might  be  so  arranged  as  to  afford  what  Henry  Clay 
called  "Incidental  Protection."  It  should,  however,  aim  to 
be  levied  only  on  such  imports  as  would  afford  the  Govern- 
ment the  greatest  amount  of  revenue,  with  the  least  amount 
of  indirect  tax  on  the  people. 

WHAT  IS  FREE  TRADE? 

If  such  a  tariff  as  the  above  was  levied,  with  this  feature 
added  and  taken  into  account  in  the  levy,  viz.,  that  an  excise, 
or  internal,  duty  is  to  be  laid  so  as  to  take  away  or  offset  any 
protection  or  subsidy  to  any  particular  business,  so  to  leave 
them  all  standing  alone  and  alike  with  the  same  chances — 
that  would  be  practical  free  trade. 

If  all  custom  duties,  custom  houses  and  offices,  were 
abolished,  and  the  funds  for  governmental  needs  supplied 
by  a  direct  tax  apportioned  to  the  different  States  on  a  basis 
of  population,  and  collected  by  these  States  as  they  collect 
their  own  taxes — that  would  be  free  trade  in  its  simplicity. 
Ideally,  it  is  the  most  natural,  the  most  economical,  the  most 
honest,  and  hence  the  best.    Nor  is  there  anything  Utopian 


60 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


in  the  general  Government  doing  just  what  the  States  have 
always  done;  however,  it  may  suit  some  to  sneer  at  it.  We 
think  it  all  right  in  the  State,  county  and  town  taxation  that 
it  should  be  direct,  why  not  equally  so  for  the  Governmental 
tax?  A  man  knows  just  what  he  is  paying  then.  And  how 
long  would  we  submit  to  a  direct  tax  to  pay  somebody  a 
bonus  to  do  their  business?  With  direct  taxation  the  peo- 
ple of  this  country  would  Dot  tolerate  protection  a  single 
year;  but  we  submit  for  a  century  to  an  indirect  tax  far 
heavier,  for  precisely  the  same  purpose.  To  show  up  pro- 
tection in  all  its  brazen  injustice,  one  single  direct  tax,  to  pay 
its  subsidies,  would  suffice  to  open  the  eyes  of  every  man  in 
the  land.  And  yet  if  protection  is  to  continue,  that  is  the 
only  honest  and  far  the  most  economical  way  of  keeping  it 
up,  for  the  people.  Fancy  the  looks  and  the  rage  of  the 
very  men  who  now  so  obstinately  persist  in  admiring  and 
supporting  this  system,  when  the  tax  list  came  in.  So  much 
for  the  bonus  to  the  wool-growers,  so  much  for  the  manu- 
facturers of  this  and  that,  so  much  for  the  rice  and  sugar 
raisers,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum.  What  a  howl  of  indignation 
would  be  heard  from  Fundy's  Bay  to  Rio  Grande's  tide. 

But  though  the  direct  tax  is  perfectly  feasible  and  the 
best  in  every  way,  yet  it  is  impracticable  because  we  are  not 
yet  sufficiently  advanced  in  economic  science  to  see  it  and 
demand  it. 

Hence  a  scientific  tariff,  with  protection  thoroughly  elim- 
inated, should  be  aimed  at  as  the  only  probable  or  possible 
goal  just  now. 

WHAT  IS  TO  BE  DONE  ABOUT  IT? 

The  only  live  questions  in  practical  politics  to-day  are 
those  pertaining  to  tariff  and  admiuistrative  reform,  control 
of  railroads,  and  the  money  question.  There  is  but  one  way 
the  ordinary  citizen  hag  of  expressing  his  wishes  on  these 


PKOTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


61 


subjects,  of  which  you  may  say  at  the  start,  party  names  and 
lines  show  no  distinct  definition.  The  terms  "Democrat" 
and  "Republican"  do  not  define  a  man's  position  on  any  of 
these  great  practical  issues.  The  parties  are  all  mixed  up 
on  them.  As  the  outcome  of  this  State  of  things  we  get  no 
reform  or  improvement  in  the  tariff  in  particular.  Much 
talk  and  word-fuming  in  the  political  platforms  of  both  par- 
ties have  ended  in  the  battle-smoke  of  elections. 

A  man's  vote  at  caucus  and  at  the  ballot-box,  backed  by 
his  personal  influence  and  devotion,  is  the  only  way  he  has 
of  expressing  himself.  The  only  hope  of  progress  in  any  re- 
form is  in  continual  agitation  of  the  subject  and  a  continual 
presentation  of  its  principal  features  and  reasons  to  the  pub- 
lic in  every  possible  way. 

For  this  reason  these  letters  have  been  written  in  the 
hope  that  the  attention  of  some  at  least  may  be  called  to  tar- 
iff reform;  their  duties  to  themselves  and  the  Nation.  In  a 
greater  degree  than  any  other  section  of  our  common  country 
the  northwest  is  injured,  oppressed  and  discriminated  against 
by  this  so  called  protective  system.  And  if  its  reform  and 
ultimate  overthrow  is  ever  to  be  brought  about,  it  can  only 
be  when  the  West  shall  have  made  up  its  mind  to  end  the 
wHole  system  and  .shall  insist  on  its  representatives  in  Con- 
gress doing  battle  in  working  and  voting  (as  the  representa- 
tives of  Pennsylvania  do  for  her  interests  regardless  of  party 
names  and  lines)  for  its  interests,  its  rights,  and  its  convic- 
tions. To-day  these  are  the  real  interests,  and  sooner  or 
later  these  will  be  the  convictions  of  the  Nation. 

Free  trade  is  fair  play  to  all  alike,  and  plants  itself  on 
these  simple  propositions,  namely:  First,  that  I  have  the 
right  to  sell  what  I  have  to  sell  where  I  can  get  the  best 
price  for  it.  Second,  that  I  have  the  right  to  buy  what  I 
need  where  I  can  get  it  the  cheapest. 


62 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


OPINIONS  OF  SOME  GREAT  AMERICANS. 

Commerce  should  be  as  free  as  the  winds  of  heaven. — 
Patrick  Henry. 

There  is  no  greater  enemy  to  trade  than  constraint. — 
Franklin. 

In  the  first  place  I  own  myself  the  friend  of  a  very  free 
system  of  commerce,  and  hold  it  as  a  truth  that  commercial 
shackles  are  generally  unjust,  oppressive,  and  impolitic. — 
Madison. 

With  me  it  is  a  fundamental  axiom,  it  is  interwoven  with 
all  my  opinions,  that  the  great  interests  of  the  country  are 
united  and  inseparable;  that  agriculture,  commerce,  and 
manufactures  will  prosper  together  or  languish  together,  and 
that  all  legislation  is  dangerous  which  proposes  to  benefit 
one  of  these  without  looking  to  consequences  which  may  fall 
on  the  others.  *  *  *  Gentlemen  tell  us  they  are  in  favor 
of  domestic  industries;  so  am  L  They  would  give  it  protec- 
tion; so  would  I.  But  then  domestic  industry  is  not 
confined  to  manufactures.  The  employments  of  agriculture, 
commerce,  and  navigation  are  all  branches  of  the  same  do- 
mestic industry;  they  all  furnish  employment  for  American 
capital  and  American  labor.  And  when  the  question  is 
whether  new  duties  shall  be  laid  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
further  encouragement  to  particular  manufactures,  every 
reasonable  man  must  ask  himself  both  whether  the  proposed 
new  encouragement  be  necessary,  and  whether  it  can  be 
given  without  injustice  to  other  branches  of  industry.  *  * 
*  Sir,  the  general  sense  of  this  age  sets,  with  a  strong  cur- 
rent in  favor  of  freedom  of  commercial  intercourse  and  un- 
restrained individual  action.  Men  yield  up  their  notions  of" 
monopoly  and  restriction  as  they  yield  up  other  prejudices, 
slowly  and  reluctantly;  but  they  cannot  withstand  the  gen- 
eral tide  of  opinion.— Daniel  Webster,  in  House,  1824. 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


63 


New  England,  sir,  has  not  been  a  leader  in  this  [protec- 
tion] policy.  On  the  contrary,  she  held  back  herself  and 
tried  to  hold  others  back  from  adopting  it,  from  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution  to  1824.  Up  to  1824  she  was  accused 
of  sinister  and  selfish  designs,  because  she  discountenanced 
the  progress  of  this  policy.  *  *  *  The  opinion  of  New 
England  up  to  1824  was  formed  in  the  conviction  that,  on 
the  whole,  it  was  wisest  and  best,  both  for  herself  and  others, 
that  manufactures  should  make  haste  slowly.  She  felt  a  re- 
luctance to  trust  great  interesests  on  the  foundation  of  Gov- 
ernment patronage;  for  who  could  tell  how  long  such 
patronage  would  last,  or  with  what  steadiness,  skill,  or 
perseverance  it  would  continue  to  be  granted?  *  *  * 
The  shipping  interest  of  this  country  requires  only  an  open 
market  and  a  fair  chance.  Everything  else  it  will  do  for 
itself.  But  it  has  not  a  fair  chance  while  it  is  so  severely 
taxed  in  whatever  enters  into  necessary  expense  of  building 
and  equipment.  In  this  respect  its  rivals  have  advantages 
which  may  in  the  end  prove  decisive  against  us. — Daniel 
Webster,  in  Senate,  1828. 

Exorbitant  duties  tend  to  render  other  classes  of  the  corn- 
unity  tributary,  in  an  improper  degree  to  the  manufactur- 
g  classes,  to  whom  they  give  a  premature  monopoly  of  the 
rkets. — Alexander  Hamilton. 
The  doctrine  that  duties  of  import  cheapen  the  price  of 
e  articles  upon  which  they  are  levied  seems  to  conflict  with 
e  first  dictates  of  common  sense.    The  duty  constitutes  a 
art  of  the  price  of  the  whole  mass  of  the  article  in  the  mar- 
et.    It  is  substantially  paid  upon  the  article  of  domestic 
anufacture  as  well  as  upon  that  of  foreign  production, 
pon  one  it  is  a  bounty,  upon  the  other  a  burden;  and  the 
peal  of  the  tax  must  operate  as  an  equivalent  reduction  of 
e  price  of  the  article,  whether  foreign  or  domestic.  We 


64 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


say,  so  long  as  the  importation  continues,  the  duty  must  be 
paid  by  the  purchaser  of  the  article. — John  Quincy  Adams, 
report  on  manufactures,  1835. 

Against  what,  then,  is  protection  asked?  It  is  against 
low  prices.  The  manufacturers  complain  that  they  cannot 
afford  to  carry  on  their  pursuits  at  prices  as  low  as  the  pres- 
ent; and  that  unless  they  can  get  higher,  they  must  give  up 
manufacturing.  The  evil,  then,  is  low  prices;  and  what  they 
ask  of  Government  is  to  give  them  higher.  But  how  do  they 
ask  it  to  be  done?  *  *  *  By  putting  down  competition, 
by  the  imposition  of  taxes  on  the  products  of  others,  so  as  to 
give  them  the  exclusion  of  the  market,  or  at  least  a  decided 
advantage  over  others;  and  thereby  enable  them  to  sell  at 
higher  prices.  Stripped  of  all  disguise,  this  is  their  request; 
and  this  they  call  protection.  Protection,  indeed!  Call  it 
tribute, — levy, —exaction, — monopoly, — plunder;  or,  if  these 
be  too  harsh,  call  it  charity,  assistance,  aid — anything  rather 
than  protection,  with  which  it  has  not  a  feature  in  common. 
— Calhoun,  1842. 

The  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  lay  and  collect 
taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,  does  not  authorize  the  ] 
laying  of  a  prohibitory  duty  or  a  duty  in  which  revenue  is  m 
sacrificed  to  the  object  of  protecting  the  manufacture  of  the  « 
commodity  taxed.    *    *    *    A  direct  tax  or  excise,  not  for 
revenue  but  for  protection,  clearly  would  not  be  within  the 
legitimate  object  of  taxation;  and  yet  it  would  be  as! 
much  so  as  a  duty  imposed  for  a  similar  purpose. — Robert  J. 
Walker,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

The  protective  policy  is  the  policy  of  wrapping  up  more 
days'  work  in  a  woolen  blanket,  not  of  putting  more  blankets 
into  a  day's  work.  A  protective  tariff  is  a  question  regard- 
ing the  enhancement  of  the  profits  of  capital  and  not  the 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


65 


augmentation  of  the  wages  of  labor. — Robert  J.  Walker,  re- 
port, 1845. 

The  system  of  unequal  taxation,  of  pampering  the  pro- 
ducers of  a  particular  article,  who  are  few,  at  the  cost  of  the 
consumers,  who  are  many,  has  been  a  fruitful  source  of 
misery  in  most  of  the  civilized  Nations  of  modern  times. 
After  it  had  become  the  object  of  the  abhorence  of  the 
friends  of  freedom  everywhere  else,  it  was  introduced,  chiefly 
under  the  auspices  of  Mr.  Clay,  into  the  United  States.  The 
tariff  of  1828,  justly  styled  by  Mr.  Webster  "a  bill  of  abomi- 
nations," carried  this  system  to  its  height,  and  the  conse- 
quent reaction  at  the  south  brought  into  jeopardy  our  Union 
and  republican  institutions.  *  *  *  You  are  told  that  the 
labor  of  the  country  deserves  and  should  have  "protection." 
You  are  told  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  an  American  sys- 
tem, and  that  that  system  should  be  followed  out  in  order 
to  protect  American  interests.  Very  well.  All  these  are  fine 
sounding  phrases,  and  I  could  give  such  a  meaning  to  each 
one  of  these  phrases  that  I  should  give  it  my  cordial  assent. 
It  is  not  the  words  to  which  I  object,  it  is  the  idea  cloaked 
under  these  words,  and  which  is  not  the  natural  meaning  of 
the  expressions.  That  labor  should  have  the  market  of 
America — my  creed  goes  farther  than  that.  I  say  that  Amer- 
ican labor  should  not  be  confined  and  restricted  to  the  mar- 
ket of  America.  The  man  who  talks  of  giving  and  securing 
to  American  labor  the  market  of  America  generally  means 
something  which  he  does  not  say,  and  it  is  the  separation  of 
the  American  market  from  the  foreign  market;  it  is  the 
adoption  of  a  system  of  restriction  which  ties  down  American 
labor,  instead  of  extending  its  sphere. — Robert  Rantoul,  of 
Massachusetts,  1848. 

What  you  call  protection  amounts,  therefore,  simply  to  a 
system  of  equal  robbery;  taking  from  one  house  interest  to 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


pay  another.  When  you  have  done  this  you  say  that  you 
have  framed  an  equal  tariff  law,  and  that  its  equal  protec- 
tion is  diffused  over  all  the  different  interests.  I  say  that 
this  is  illogical;  it  is  absurd.  You  must  change  your  theory 
of  a  tariff  or  else  you  must  perpetually  fail  in  your  effort  to 
gain  a  system  that  shall  actually  make  the  United  States 
rich.  If  that  is  your  object,  you  must  diminish  the  cost  of 
the  production  of  your  manufactures;  and  when  you  have 
done  that  you  have  taken  a  great  step  toward  protecting 
both  the  manufacturers  and  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
But  if  we  go  on  in  the  present  plan  of  adding  to  the  cost  of 
everything  we  produce,  there  is  not  another  conutry  on  the 
face  of  the  globe  that  will  contribute  one  cent  to  enrich  the 
people  of  the  United  States  or  be  able  to  buy  a  single  article 
of  our  production. — John  A.  Kasson,  (Rep.)  July  U,  1866. 

With  the  high  tariff  men,  I  am  for  promoting  'American 
industry;'  and  with  them  I  am  for  bringing  the  producer  and 
consumer  as  near  together  as  practicable.  Nevertheless  I 
am  an  absolute  free-trader.  I  would  have  no  custom  house 
on  the  face  of  the  earth.  Never  will  Government  be  admin- 
istered honestly  and  frugally  until  the  cost  of  administrating 
it  is  paid  by  direct  taxation.  And  never  will  government  be 
confined  within  its  proper  limits  until  its  sole  office  shall  be 
to  protect  persons  and  property. — Gerrit  Smith,  1867. 

National  selfishness  is  as  much  more  to  be  deprecated 
than  personal  greed,  as  aggregated  millions  are  of  more  con- 
sequence than  the  individual.  Who  shall  rightfully  inter- 
pose barriers  to  the  unobstructed  interchange  of  the  results 
of  human  industry,  invention,  and  skill?  Assuming  that 
the  interests  of  all  Nations  are  the  interests  of  each,  and  each 
of  all,  I  know  not  where  the  lines  are  to  be  drawn.  If  Japan 
and  China  are  getting  sufficiently  enlightened  to  abandon 
their  exclusiveness  as  against  commercial  interchange  with 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


67 


the  rest  of  mankind,  surely  the  United  States  should  take 
the  lead  in  the  adoption  of  a  free  trade  policy,  which,  while 
founded  upon  world-wide  considerations,  cannot  fail  to  be 
twice  blessed  —"blessing  him  who  gives  and  him  who  takes," 
in  the  spirit  of  mutual  reciprocity  and  good  will. —  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  1868. 

Free  trade  is  only  one  of  the  many  forms  of  unrestricted 
human  action,  which  poets,  philosophers,  and  the  common 
people  worsjiip  under  the  name  of  liberty,  and,  like  freedom 
of  thought,  freedom  of  speech,  freedom  of  association,  free- 
dom of  religious  observance,  is  an  imprescriptible  right  of 
man,  which  guarantees  his  manhood  and  assures  the  num- 
berless blessings  of  a  high  and  beneficient  civilization.  Free 
trade  but  expresses  the  world-old  and  universal  practice  of 
all  rational  beings  when  it  asserts— which  is  all  it  asserts— 
that  it  is  better  for  men  to  procure  the  commodities  they 
need  by  exchange  than  by  production,  when  the  exchange  is 
cheaper  than  the  production.  Go  iuto  our  fields,  our  work- 
shops, our  mills,  our  stores,  our  shipping-houses,  and  every 
practical  man  there  will  tell  you  that  he  would  be  a  fool 
who  would  waste  ten  hours'  labor  in  producing  for  himself 
what  he  might  get  from  another  in  exchange  for  six  hours' 
labor.  Every  individual  of  our  forty  millions  of  people,  in 
his  relations  with  other  individuals,  acts  upon  this  principal; 
every  family  in  our  ten  millions  of  families,  in  its  relation  to 
other  families,  acts  upon  this  principle;  every  township  of 
our  many  thousand  townships,  in  its  relation  to  other  town- 
ships, acts  upon  this  principle;  every  State  of  our  thirty- 
eight  States  and  nine  Territories,  in  its  relation  to  other 
States  and  Territories,  acts  upon  this  principle:  and  yet  the 
principle  is  pronounced  a  heresy,  and  the  application  of  it 
to  that  larger  agglomeration  of  men  called  the  Nation,  is  re- 
sisted as  if  it  were  something  new,  unprecedented,  dangerous, 
and  awful!—  William  Cullen  Bryant. 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE, 


FKEE  TRADE  PUBLICATIONS. 

Published  mostly  by  the  New  York  Free  Trade  Club,  39 
Nassau  Street,  New  York.  Issued  in  paper  covers.  Mailed 
if  desired  in  assorted  lots  at  wholesale  prices.  Class  "a,"  of 
short  tracts,  etc.,  will  be  sent  for  10  cents;  class  "o,"  of  gen- 
eral pamphlets,  for  20  cents;  class  "b,"  of  special  studies, 
for  $1.00. 


Bastiat.— Sophisms  of  the  Protectionists,  16mo.  398  p. . 

Sumner. — History  of  Protection  in  U.  S.,  8vo,  64  p  

Earle— Revenue  System  and  the  Civil  Service,  12mo,47  p 
Moore  —Friendly  Sermons  to  Protectionist  Manufac- 
turers, 12mo,  81  p  

White— The  Tariff  Question,  12mo,  30  p  

Wells— Why  we  Trade  and  How  we  Trade,  12mo,  57p  . . 

Cedman— Free  Ships,  12mo,  54  p  .  

Schoenhof — Destructive  Influence  of  the  Tariff  upon 

Manufacture  and  Commerce,  12mo,  88  p  

Schoenhof —Wages  and  Trade,  12mo,  25  p  

Donnell — The  Impending  Crisis,  8vo,  32  p  

Donnell— Slavery  and  Protection,  8vo,  69  p  

Wells— Free  Trade  (from  the  Political  Cyclopaedia), 

8vo, 21 p  

Wells— "Foreign  Pauper  Labor"  Argument  {Princeton 

Review,  Nov.  1883),  8vo,  20  p  

Bowker — Free  Trade  the  Best  Protection,  12mo,  (18 

pages  of  tracts)  

Shearman— Does  Protection  Protect?  12mo,  20  p  

Shearman— Free  Trade  the  Only  Road  to  Manufactur- 
ing Prosperity  and  High  Wages,  12mo,  24  p  

Shearman— Free  Trade  the  Road  to  Temperance  and 

Prosperity,  12mo,  12  p 
McAdam— The  protective  System:  Whatsit  Costs  the 

American  Farmer,  12mo,  20  p,  

Wheeler — American  Prosperity  the  Result  of  American 

Freedom,  12 mo,  4  p  

Codman— Revival  of  American  Carrying  Trade,  12mo, 
4  p. 


McAdam— The  Tariff  in  American  Politics,  12mo,  4  p. 

Holland— Plea  for  Free  Trade,  12mo,  4  p  

Our  Navigation  Laws,  12mo,  4  p  

Story  of  My  Conversion,  8vo,  4p  

Beecher— Cooper  Union  Address,  12mo,  4  p  

Address  of  New  York  Free  Trade  Club  to  Young  Men 

of  United  States,  12 mo ,6  p  

Shearman— Destroying  Our  iVlancfaetures,  12mo,  6  p.. . 

What  is  Our  Tariff,  12mo,  4  p  

Short  T.dks.  (Leaflets.  Assorted)  


.$3  00 
1  50 
1  50 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


69 


BOOKS  OX  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 

The  following  books,  selected  from  the  lists  of  various 
publishers,  may  be  recommended  to  those  wishing  to  study 
up  the  Free  Trade  question,  and  kindred  economic  and  gov- 
ernmental subjects: 

The  Wealth  of  Nations:  Adam  Smith.  Putnam.  12mo.  796  p..  cloth. SI  25 

The  standard  and  foundation  book  of  free  trade. 
Political  Economy:  Prof.  A.  L.  Perry.  Scribner.  12mo.  248  p.,  cloth.  1  50 

Economics:  J.  M.  Sturtevant.  Putnam.  12mo,  cloth   1  75 

Political  Economy:  Francis  A.  Walker.  Holt.  12mo,  490  p..  cloth.  .  2  25 

Political  Economy:  H.Fawcett.  Macmillan.  12mo.  658  p.,  cloth         3  00 

Political  Economy:  J.  S.  Mill.  Appleton.  2  vols.,  12mo.  615,  603  p.. 

cloth   4  00 

Of  the  above.  Mill's  elaborate  work  is  the  chief  authority  for 
those  who  wish  to  study  thoroughly;  Fawcett's  a  briefer  and 
simpler  statement  of  Mill's  principles;  Walker's,  the  latest 
and  most  comprehensive  work:  and  Perry's  and  Sturtevant's, 
the  shortest  and  easiest  books. 
Primer  of  Political  economy:  W.  S.  Jevons.  Appleton.  16mo,  134  p., 

cloth   45 

Simple,  and  very  good  as  far  as  it  goes. 
History  of  Political  Economy:  J.  A.  Blanqui.  Putnam.  8vo.,  597  p.,  * 

cloth   3  50 

This  most  important  work,  by  the  French  economist,  traces 
•  economic  ideas  and  systems  from  the  Greeks  to  the  present 
day.    Introduction  by  D.  A.  Wells. 
Essavs  on  Political  Economy:  F.  Bastiat.    Putnam.  12mo,  302  p.. 

cloth   1  25 

Sophisms  of  Protection :  F.  Bastiat.  Putnam.  12mo,  31;';  p.,  cloth.. .  1  00 
This  greatest  of  French  free-traders  stands  alone  for  the  clear- 
cut,  every-day  lllustrtjons  and  the  lively  satire  of  his  books. 
What  is  Free  Trade:  Emile  Walter.  Putnam.  l2mo,  158  p..  cloth. . . .  75 

An  adaptation  of  Bastiat's  essays,  with  American  facts. 
History  of  Protection  in  the  United  States:  W.  G.  Sumner.  Putnam. 

8vo.  64  p.,  cloth   75 

A  clear,  historical  statement  of  the  origin  and  changes  of  tariff 
legislation,  applied  as  an  argument  against  protection. 
History  of  the  Free  Trade  Movement  in  England:  A.  Mongredien. 

Cassell.    Himo,  188  p.,  cloth   50 

A  brief,  interesting  sketch,  valuable  in  answering  Protectionist 
cavils. 

Our  Merchant  Marine:  D.  A.  Wells.  Putnam.  12mo.  225  p.,  eloth         1  00 

A  history  and  review  of  the  navigation  laws,  and  the  consequent 
decadence  of  American  shipping. 
Free  Land  and  Free  Trade:  S.  S.  Cox.  Putnam.  16mo,  126  p..  cloth . .  1  00 
"The  lessons  of  the  English  Corn  Laws  applied  to  the  United 
States." 


70  PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 

The  tariff  laws,  with  Treasury  decisions  and  regulations,  indexes, 
etc.,  are  given  in  Heyl's  "United  States  Duties  on  Imports"  (8vo,  about 
500  p.),  endorsed  by  the  Treasury  Department,  published  by  W.  H.  Mor- 
rison, Washington. 

A  brief  synopsis  of  the  tariff  with  actual  amounts  of  duties  paid  and 
ad  valorem  rates  will  bp  found  in  Spofford's  "American  Almanac"  for 
the  current  year,  published  by  the  American  News  Company,  at  25  cents, 
in  paper. 

Readers  desiring  to  go  further  in  economic  and  political  literature, 
are  referred  to  the  classified  descriptive  list  of  books  on  "Political 
Economy  and  Political  Science,"  published  in  a  25-cent  pamphlet  by 
the  Society  for  Political  Education,  4  Morton  Street,  New  York  City.  A 
pamphlet  of  "Subjects  and  Questions"  for  debate  on  these  topics,  is 
also  published  by  that  society,  at  10  cents. 

The  Million  is  a  weekly  free  trade  paper  published  by  H.  J.  Philpott, 
Des  Moines,  Iowa,  at  50  cents  a  year. 

The  American  Free-Trader  is  published  mid-monthly,  at  50  cents  a 
year,  by  A.  L.  Earle,  137  Broadway,  New  York. 

The  books  and  leading  pamphlets  scheduled  may  be  had  by  post  on 
receipt  of  price,  from  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  27  West  Twenty-third  Street, 
New  York,  or  through  most  booksellers. 


THE  ANTI- PROTECTIVE -TARIFF  LEAGUE 
OF  MINNESOTA. 


OFFICERS. 

President, 

Hon.  Gordon  E.  Cole,         -         -         Faribault,  Minn. 

First  Vice  President, 
Hon.  Eugene  M.  Wilson,  -  Minneapolis,  Minn, 

Second  Vice  Presides  t, 
Hon.  B.  B.  Herbert,         -  -         Red  Wing,  Minn. 

Corresponding  Secretary, 
John  W.  Willis,  Esq.,         -  -         St.  Paul,  Minn. 

Recording  Secretary, 
Capt.  James  D.  Wood,         -  -         St.  Paul,  Minn. 

Treasurer, 

C.  E.  Rittenhouse,  Esq.,  -       *      St.  Paul,  Minn. 

All  communications  should  be  addressed  to  the  Presi- 
dent or  Corresponding  Secretary,  St.  Paul,  Minn. 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


71 


CONSTITUTION. 
This  association  shall  be  known  as  the  Anti-Protective 
Tariff  League  of  Minnesota,  and  its  object  shall  be  by  every 
laudible  means  to  advance  free  trade  sentiment,  and  to  labor 
to  secure  the  nomination  and  election  to  Congress  and  the 
State  Legislature  those  who  favor  the  gradual  reduction  and 
ultimate  abolition  of  all  tariff  rates  levied  for  purposes  of 
protection. 

BY-LAWS. 

L — OFFICERS. 

The  officers  of  this  league  shall  be  a  President,  two 
Vice  Presidents,  Recording  Secretary,  Corresponding  Sec- 
retary and  Treasurer,  who  together  with  three  other  mem- 
bers of  said  league,  shall  constitute  an  executive  committee. 
All  the  above  named  officers  shall  be  by  ballot  elected  at  the 
regular  meeting  of  such  league  on  the  first  Wednesday  of 
April  in  each  year,  and  shall  hold  their  respective  offices  for 
.one  year  thereafter,  and  until  their  successors  are  duly 
elected.  A  vacancy  occurring  in  any  office  may  be  filled  at 
any  meeting  by  a  special  election. 

II. — MEETINGS. 

This  League  shall  meet  on  call  of  said  executive  commit- 
tee, which  may  be  called  together  by  the  President  of  said 
League  whenever  he  shall  deem  best  and  shall  be  called  to- 
gether by  said  President  on  petition  signed  by  a  majority 
of  said  committee. 

III. — SUBORDINATE  LEAGUES. 

Subordinate  Leagues  may  be  formed  by  the  adoption  of 
the  principles  embraced  in  the  constitution  of  the  State 
League  and  each  League  so  organized,  consisting  of  not  less 
than  ten  members  shall  be  entitled  to  elect  one  representa- 
tive to  the  State  League  who  thereby  shall  be  construed  a 


72 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


member  of  that  League  with  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
membership. 

IV.— QUORUM. 

Fifteen  members  of  said  League  shall  constitute  a  quo- 
rum. 

V. — MEMBERSHIP. 

The  executive  committee  shall  immediately  upon  their 
election  choose  from  the  members  of  said  League  a  commit- 
tee of  three  who  shall  receive,  decide  upon  and  report  upon, 
all  applications  for  membership  in  said  League.- 

VI.-  PLACE  OF  MEETING. 

The  regular  meetings  of  said  League  shall  be  held  at  the 
city  of  St.  Paul  unless  otherwise  directed  by  the  executive 
committee. 

VII. — FEES. 

Each  person  becoming  a  member  of  this  League  shall 
sign  the  Constitution  and  By-Laws  and  pay  to  the  Treasur- 
er the  sum  of  Five  Dollars  and  the  fund  so  realized  or  any 
part  thereof  shall  be  used  only  by  direction  of  the  Executive 
Committee  at  a  regular  meeting  thereof.  No  other  fee  dues 
or  assessments  shall  be  required  except  by  a  vote  of  a  major- 
ity of  the  members  of  the  League  present  at  a  meeting  there- 
of duly  called;  and  every  member  shall  be  duly  notified  by 
the  Corresponding  Secretary  of  said  call;  provided  that  no 
fee  shall  be  required  from  any  delegate  from  a  subordinate 
League. 

VIII. 

The  duties  of  the  President.  Vice-Presidents,  Secretary 
and  Treasurer  shall  be  those  that  usually  appertain  to  such 
offices  in  similar  organizations  and  at  the  annual  meeting  in 
April  the  Treasurer  shall  present  a  report  showing  all  re- 
ceipts and  disbursements  for  the  preceding  year  and  the 
said  Executive  Committee  shall  act  as  an  Auditing  Board 
thereof. 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE.  73 
IX. — EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE. 

All  other  things  needful  and  proper  to  be  done  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  principles  and  the  interests  of  this  League 
shall  be  under  the  charge  of  the  Executive  Committee. 

X. — AMENDMENTS. 

Amendments  to  the  Constitution  and  By-Laws  must  be 
signed  in  writing  at  a  regular  meeting  of  the  League  and  ac- 
tion thereon  must  be  deferred  to  the  next  regular  or  special 
meeting  of  the  League. 

A  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present  shall  be  nec- 
essary to  adopt  such  proposed  amendment. 

MEMBERSHIP. 

JAMES  D.  WOOD . . .  Ferris  Falls  HARRY  C  ALDWELL ....  St.  Paul 

JOHN  F.  NORRISH  Hastings  GORDON  E.  ('OLE. . . .  Faribault 

J.  C.  PIERCE  Red  Wing  WM.  LOUIS  KELLY  St.  Paul 

T.  G.  ME.-vLEY  Monticello  F.  S.  KIRKPATR1CK  St.  Paul 

C.  H.  BENEDICT  St.  Paul  E.  J.  HODGSON  St.  Paul 

THOMAS  E.  HEENAN  . .  Morris  J.  H.  BAKER  Rapidan 

JOHN  W.  WILLIS  St.  Paul  GEO.  L.  BECKER  St.  Paul 

B.B.  HERBERT  Red  Wins  E.  C.  STRINGER  Hastings 

EDMUND  R.  OTIS  St.  Paul  H.  H.  FULLER  St.  Paul 

O.  M.  HALL  Red  Wing  WM.  M.  CAMPBELL..  .Litchfield 

F.  B.  NASH.  Jr.,  Fargo  REY.S.G.  SMITH  St.  Paul 

R.  L.  FRAZEE  Frazee  City  F.  WEAYEKSON  St.  Paul 

TAMS  BIXBY  Red  Wing  WALTER  S.  LEFEYRE.  St.  Paul 

E.  A.  CAMPBELL     Minneapolis  G.  GULBRANDSON ..  Albert  Lea 

S.  M.  EMERY  Lake  City  J.  M.  BOWLER   Bird  Island 

P.  J.  SM  ALLEY  Caledonia  P.  H.  KELLY  St.  Paul 

H.  R.  WELLS  Preston  C.  E.  R1TTENHOUSE . . .  .St.  Paul 

D.  A.  ROBERTSON  St.  Paul 


ADDRESS  OE    THE    ANTI-PROTECTIVE-TRAIFF    LEAGUE  OF 
MINNESOTA. 

To  the  People  of  Minnesota: 

Under  the  existing  tariff  laws  of  the  United  States  the 
average  rate  of  taxation  upon  dutiable  imports  is  not  less 
than  42^2  P^r  cent,  of  their  value.  This  tax  is  levied  upon 
about  fifteen  hundred  articles.  It  varies  from  ten  per  cent 
upon  diamonds  to  seventy-five  per  cent  upon  iron,  and  eighty 
to  one  hundred  and  fifteen  per  cent  upon  woolen  goods.  It 


74 


PKOTEOTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


is  heaviest  upon  those  things  which  are  most  in  general  use  * 
and  many  of  which  are  necessaries  of  life.  It  embraces 
nearly  everything  which  is  essential  to  the  comfort,  business 
prosperity  and  existence  of  our  people.  There  is  scarcely  any 
article  which  they  wear,  use  or  consume,  from  the  cradle  to 
the  grave,  (except  farm  products)  which  is  not  burdened  by 
an  increased  cost  of  about  one-half  its  value  by  this  method 
of  indirect  taxation. 

Originally  imposed  as  a  war  measure  for  the  purpose  of 
raising  a  revenue  for  war  purposes,  it  has  been  maintained 
during  the  nineteen  years  which  have  elapsed  since  the  war 
without  any  material  reduction  in  its  rates,  and  long  after 
the  revenues  it  produced  began  to  form  an  accumulating 
surplus  in  the  National  Treasury. 

It  is  no  longer  a  tariff  for  the  support  of  the  Govern- 
ment, but  it  is,  as  its  advocates  assert,  a  tariff  for  the 
"protection  of  our  infant  manufactures."  The  revenue  it 
produces  is  merely  an  incident  to  the  "protection"  it  affords. 
It  rests  upon  the  theory  that  our  strong  and  self-developed 
industries  should  create  and  support  those  which  are  in- 
capable of  supporting  themselves — that  capital  should  be 
diverted  from  remunerative  enterprises  and  employed  in 
those  which  are  naturally  un remunerative — that  a  well  es- 
tablished system  of  pauper  industries  subsidized  and  sus- 
tained by  the  enforced  charity  of  their  prosperous  neighbors 
is  conducive  to  the  public  welfare — that  taxation  is  a  source 
of  profit  to  those  who  are  taxed. 

The  object  of  such  a  tariff  is  to  stimulate  capitalists  to  in- 
vest their  means  in  manufacturing  by  the  promise  of  an  ab- 
normal profit.  This  stimulant  it  supplies  by  taxing  imported 
goods  so  heavily  that  they  canuot  compete  with  goods  man- 
ufactured here.  It  artificially  increases  the  selling  price  of 
the  commodity  upon  which  it  is  imposed.    This  increase  the 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


75 


consumer  pays— not  to  the  Government,  but  to  the  home 
manufacturer,  to  him  who  makes  and  sells  the  article  here 
as  cheap  as  it  can  be  made  abroad  and  imported  into  this 
country  under  the  existing  tariff.  It  is  essentially  a  tax  upon 
all  consumers  for  the  benefit  of  the  mill-owning  capitalist 
alone.  It  increases  his  dividends;  but  it  adds  nothing  to 
the  wages  of  his  employes.  They  work  and  are  forced  to 
work  for  whatever  their  labor  is  worth  in  open  market.  No 
tariff  shields  them  from  the  competition  of  foreign  labor — • 
no  legislation  protects  them  from  labor-saving  machinery. 
If  the  price  of  labor,  by  reason  of  a  "  strike,"  or  its  scarcity, 
rises  so  high  that  the  manufacturer  can  import  foreign  labor- 
ers at  a  profit,  he  does  so.  If  in  the  progress  of  invention  he 
can  be  supplied  with  improved  machinery  by  which  one 
laborer  can  do  the  work  formerly  done  by  two,  he  puts  it  in 
and  turns  out  the  extra  laborer.  It  is  for  his  iuterest  io  re- 
duce the  wages  of  labor,  to  cheapen  production.  He  does 
not  divide  his  profits  with  his  employes.  The  subsidy  which 
the  tariff  tax  gives  to  manufacturing  is  given  to  the  mill- 
owners;  not  one  dime  roaches  the  mill- workers. 

This  system  uninterruptedly  maintained  for  the  past 
quarter  century  has  borne  its  legitimate  fruits.  Those  who 
first  engaged  in  manufacturing  under  protection,  realized 
enormous  profits.  This  invited  and  created  competition. 
Old  factories  were  enlarged;  new  ones  spraug  into  existence. 
Over-production  was  the  result.  Manufactured  products 
increased  in  quantity  until  the  market  was  glutted;  the  fac- 
tories could  only  run  at  a  loss;  they  produced  more  than  they 
could  sell. 

The  tax  which  excluded  foreign  competition  from  our 
markets  prevented  us  from  competing  in  foreign  markets.  It 
taxed  both  manufactured  products  and  the  raw  materials 
out  of  which  they  were  manufactured.    If  we  were  able  to 


7(3 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


make  an  article  as  cheaply  as  it  could  be  made  abroad,  we 
could  not  sell  it  as  cheap,  because  the  material  out  of  which 
it  was  made  cost  here  fifty  per  cent  more  than  it  cost  there. 
Moreover,  all  traffic  consists  in  the  exchange  of  productions. 
If  we  do  not  buy  of  a  Nation  it  cannot  buy  of  us,  because  it 
has  nothing  but  its  productions  to  buy  with.  So  when  over- 
production came  upon  us,  we  could  not  barter  our  surplus 
stocks  for  the  surplus  stocks  of  other  Nations,  because  our 
custom  houses  stood  in  the  way  and  taxed  the  goods  we  pur- 
chased. The  tariff  upon  imports  differed  only  in  name  from 
a  taiiff  ny  on  exports.  Protection  not  only  walled  others  out 
but  it  walled  us  in.  It  confined  us  to  a  home  market,  and 
then  overstocked  the  market.  Then  the  manufacturers 
"pooled"  and  combined,  wages  were  "cut"  and  shops  "shut 
down"  until  the  surplus  stock  could  be  worked  off. 

Strikes  followed.  Workmen  began  to  realize  that  high 
wages  left  no  surplus  for  times  of  depression— that  the  costs 
of  the  week's  living  consumed  the  price  of  the  week's  labor. 
Struggling  against  low  wages  they  found  themselves  without 
work,  without  means  of  suppott,  without  hope.  Misery,  vio- 
lence and  crime  issued  out  of  the  "protected"  industries. 
The  Molly  Maguires  commenced  their  work,  and  the  tramp 
began  his  wanderings. 

Then  came  the  "survival  of  the  fittest."  The  small  man- 
ufacturers went  to  the  wall,  and  were  captured  by  the  large 
ones.  Monopoly  triumphed  over  competition.  To-day  our 
leading  industries  are  in  the  hands  of  a  few  monopolists. 
High  prices  are  maintained  by  an  enforced  limited  produc- 
tion. Dividends  are  "protected"  by  reductions  of  wages. 
Home  competition  is  crushed  by  the  "freezing  out"  process, 
and  foreign  competition  prevented  by  the  high  tariff. 

Such  is  the  history  of  protection  in  this  country  for  the 
past  quarter  century.    A  system  so  pernicious  in  its  effect 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


77 


upon  the  industries  it  was  designed  to  bless,  could  not  fail 
to  cast  its  blighting  influence  over  those  it  did  not  assume 
to  "protect."  It  has  destroyed  our  merchant  marine,  stripped 
us  of  our  South  American  trade,  and  stimulated  obher  Na- 
tions to  adopt  retaliatory  tariffs  against  us.  It  has  increased 
the  cost  of  transportation;  burdened  and  handicapped  every 
legitimate  and  self-supporting  industry,  and  lessened  the 
profits  of  agriculture.  It  has  accumulated  a  large  surplus 
in  the  National  Treasury,  and  invited  wanton  extravagance 
and  expenditures  of  the  public  funds;  and  above  all,  it  has 
increased,  by  nearly  one-half,  the  cost  of  living  to  every  man, 
woman  and  child  in  the  Nation. 

To  the  people  of  Minnesota,  dependant  largely  upon  the 
prosperity  of  our  wheat-growers,  the  question  of  tariff  reform 
is  of  great  and  growing  importance.  The  price  of  wheat 
here  is  governed  by  its  price  in  Liverpool.  In  18S0,  the 
United  States  supplied  75  per  cent  of  all  the  wheat  and  flour 
•imported  into  Great  Britain.  In  1881,  this  was  reduced  to  69 
per  cent;  in  1882,  to  55;  and  in  1883,  to  46  per  cent.  In  other 
words,  the  93,000,000  bushels  we  sent  to  Great  Britain  in 
1881,  fell  to  74,000,000  bushels  in  1883.  Yet  the  total  import 
from  all  countries  increased  frofn  136,000,000  bushels  in  1881, 
to  160,000,000  bushels  in  1833.  It  is  evident  that  England 
has  found  other  and  cheaper  wheat  markets  than  our  own. 
She  has  found  elsewhere  people  who  are  willing  to  exchange 
their  products  for  hers.  Her  imports  from  Russia  increased 
from  8,000,000  bushels  in  1881,  to  27,000,000  bushels  in  1883. 
From  India,  they  increased  from  2,000,000  bushels  in  1879,  to 
15,000,000  bushels  in  1881,  and  23,000,000  bushels  in  1883. 
From  Australia  she  received  in  1883,  32,000,000  bushels,  a 
large  increase  over  preceding  years.* 


*These  statistics  are  from  the  Milling  World,  the  leading  miller's 
trade  journal  of  the  United  States. 


78 


PROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


Is  it  difficult  to  understand 

"why  wheat  is  low?" 

We  are  losing  the  market  in  which  we  have  heretofore 
disposed  of  our  surplus  crops.  Instead  of  pursuing  a  liberal 
policy  towards  the  wheat  buying  Nations  of  Europe,  and 
securing  their  trade  by  trading  with  them,  we  have  built  a 
wall  of  tariff  duties  along  our  coast  and  shut  them  out. 
We  have  done  all  that  we  could  do  to  induce  them  to  test 
the  undeveloped  soil  of  the  East  and  seek  a  market  there. 

Whatever  fluctuations  may  occur  in  the  wheat  market,  it 
is  evident  that  low  prices  will  be  the  average.  Unless  the 
cost  of  production  is  reduced,  unless  they  can  raise  wheat 
cheaper  than  heretofore,  there  is  little  hope  of  profit  to  our 
wheat  growers.  To  do  this,  the  cost  of  living,  of  transpor- 
tation and  of  agricultural  machinery  must  be  reduced.  Upon 
each  of  these  elements  of  production  the  existing  tariff  im- 
poses its  heavy  burden  of  taxation.  It  taxes  the  farmer's 
wearing  apparel,  his  linen,  cotton  and  woolen  goods;  his 
shirt,  coat,  boots  and  hat.  It  taxes  his  carpets,  furniture, 
bedding  and  cookstove;  his  crockery,  rice,  sugar  and  salt; 
the  lumber,  nails,  paint,  glass  and  hardware  in  his  house; 
his  drugs,  medicines  and  pipe;  his  newspaper  and  his  Bible. 
There  is  not  a  nail,  screw  or  bolt,  or  a  piece  of  iron,  steel  or 
leather  in  his  farm  machinery,  no  implement  or  tool,  not 
even  his  hoe,  plow,  spade,  scythe,  nor  axe,  which  does  not 
pay  its  heavy  tribute  to  "protected"  capital.  The  wagon  in 
which  he  hauls  his  grain,  the  railroad  that  carries  it  to  the 
seaboard,  and  the  ships  (if  American)  which  transport  it  to 
Europe,  are  likewise  burdened. 

The  tariff  has  increased  the  cost  of  transportation. 

It  has  increased  the  cost  of  farming. 

It  has  increased  the  cost  of  living. 

For  twenty-four  consecutive  years,  "protection"  has  been 


1ROTECTION  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


79 


tested  here.  If  at  the  close  of  this  period  it  is  true  that  the 
favored  industries  are  unable  to  support  themselves — if  they 
cannot  sustain  even  as  slight  a  reduction  of  the  tax  as  pro- 
posed by  the  Morrison  Bill,  then  the  experiment  is  a  failure. 
If  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  high  tariffs  has  left  these  chil- 
dren of  subsidy  so  feeble  that  they  cannot  cast  off  even 
twenty  per  cent  of  their  "protecting"  wraps,  how  many  gen- 
erations of  men  must  live,  be  taxed  and  die  before  they  will 
become  sufficiently  robust  to  stand  alone?  A  ay  stem  so  bur- 
densome and  so  fruitless  of  benefit,  ought  to  be  forever 
abandoned. 

It  is  not  right  to  tax  one  man  for  another's  gain.  It  is 
not  right  to  force  the  profitable  industries  of  the  Nation  to 
pay  tribute  to  those  which  are  by  nature  unprofitable.  The 
inexorable  law  of  demand  and  supply  which  regulates  the 
price  of  grain  and  the  wages  of  the  laborer  governs  also  the 
manufactures.  They  will  exist  whenever  there  is  a  demand 
for-  them,  wherever  they  will  pay.  The  best  way  to  protect 
them  is  to  give  them  cheap  raw  material,  cheap  machinery, 
cheap  transportation,  untaxed  labor,  and  an  open  market  in 
every  quarter  of  the  globe.  If,  with  these  advantages, 
backed  by  American  pluck,  skill  and  ingenuity,  they  are  un- 
able to  be  self-supporting,  no  system  of  subsidies  or  tariffs, 
no  stimulants  can  ever  render  them  so. 

Revenue  reform  can  only  be  secured  by  an  emphatic  and 
determined  expression  of  public  sentiment  in  its  favor.  The 
monopolists  who  have  become  millionaires  by  protection 
are  too  powerful  to  be  easily  overthrown.  The  politicians 
and  political  parties  of  the  country  are  in  their  hands.  Old 
issues  are  resurrected  and  new  ones  created  for  the  purpose 
of  concealing:  and  suppressing  this  most  important  of  all 
issues.  Every  attempt  in  Congress  to  materially  reduce  the 
tariff  tax  has  hitherto  failed.    A  mysterious  but  overpower- 


80 


FREE  TRADE  AND  PROTECTION. 


ing  influence  has  stifled  the  voice  and  thwarted  the  work  of 
reform. 

It  is  time  for  the  people  to  speak. 

We  ask  the  reader  to  give  this  subject  the  candid  and 
thorough  investigation  its  importance  demands.  The  Anti- 
Protective  Tariff  League  of  Minnesota  does  not  seek  to 
create  a  new  political  party  nor  to  disintegrate  existing  par- 
ties. Its  single  purpose  is  to  call  forth  such  an  emphatic 
popular  demand  for  revenue  reform,  that  in  this  State 
neither  party  will  be  able  to  elect  to  either  house  of  Con- 
gress, a  Senator  or  Representative  who  will  not  vote  and 
honestly  aud  zealously  work  for  reform  in  spite  of  caucus 
dictation,  party  expediency  and  the  occult  influence  of  a  rich 
and  powerful  lobby. 

We  believe  that  the  existing  tariff  taxes  should  be  grad- 
ually and  systematically  reduced  until  the  element  of  "pro- 
tection" is  eliminated  from  them.  That  duties  upon  im- 
ports, like  all  other  taxes,  should  be  levied  for  revenue  only, 
and  only  so  much  revenue  should  be  so  collected  as  is 
necessary  for  the  support  of  the  Government  economically 
administered;  that  every  business  should  stand  upon  its 
own  merits;  that  favoritism  should  be  shown  to  none;  that 
the  best  way  to  reduce  the  $150,000,000  annual  surplus  in 
the  treasury  is  to  reduce  the  taxes  which  create  it. 

We  urge  the  organization  in  every  town  in  the  State  of 
local  clubs  for  this  purpose,  and  invite  the  co-operation  of 
all  citizens  who  are  ready  to  demand  the  reduction  of  sur- 
plus taxation. 

The  Anti-Pkotective  Tarife  League  of  Minnesota. 


LETTERS 


ON 

PROTECTION  •  FREE  TRADE 

BY 

F.  B.  NASH,  Jr.  i| 

.with  •  9 

Opinions  of  Prominent  Statesmen  aiiflj 
Writers  on  Political  Economy. 

CONTAINING  ALSO 

'•CONSTITUTION  AND  BY-LAWS,  I 

Officers  of,  and  Address  by.  the  •••>^«M^H 
J{nti=Pr0iectiiT=<r;triff  2V;//f//r  of  Jjtliniic.wfit, 

In  pamphlet  form,  80  pages;  price. -10  cents  eaVfc-;  100  -xj 
copies,  $5.00.  Apply  to  a  Ay  officer  jr  member 

of  the  League,  or  to  Red  Wir.g-Printmg  Co.  .  "•^ 


